Oral
Answers to
Questions

JUSTICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Imprisonment

Gareth Johnson: What the Government’s policy is on the use of imprisonment for offenders.

David Gauke: Sentencing must match the severity of the crime, but there is persuasive evidence that short sentences do not work in helping some offenders to turn their backs on crime, which is why we are exploring options that would see them used much less frequently.

Gareth Johnson: A deeply concerning incident took place in my constituency at the weekend involving an assault using a noxious substance. May I ask the Secretary of State for a clear commitment not only that the sale and possession of acid will be targeted, but that he will ensure that those guilty of these despicable and evil crimes receive significant prison terms?

David Gauke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a very serious incident. Such attacks are truly dreadful and have life-changing consequences, and anyone committing them must feel the full force of the law. That is why the Offensive Weapons Bill, which is currently being considered in the Lords, will change the law to stop the sale of acid to under-18s and to make it an offence to possess a corrosive substance in a public place. It is for the independent courts to determine sentences handed down in individual cases, but it is already the case that the use of a weapon, including acid, in any offence is treated as an aggravating factor meriting an increased sentence.

Ellie Reeves: Statistics show that 36% of rough sleepers in London have previously been in prison—the figure is up three percentage points on the year before—which is deeply concerning. Short sentences do nothing but exacerbate the issue and do not reduce reoffending. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is now time to introduce a presumption against prison sentences of less than 12 months?

David Gauke: The hon. Lady makes a very important point. If someone is given a short sentence, it can mean that they lose their home, which would put them in a more difficult position, and then on their release they would be at much greater risk of rough sleeping. We are looking at our options, and I welcome her support. We are running pilots at Pentonville, Bristol and Leeds to see what we can do to address the problem of rough sleeping.

Bob Neill: I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s much more realistic and nuanced approach to sentencing and the use of imprisonment. Does he agree that it is essential that we have space in our prisons for those whose crimes are so serious that only custody is appropriate, but that we do not overcrowd prisons with those who have mental or medical difficulties, or literacy or social problems, or those who might be better dealt with through rigorous community sentences?

David Gauke: I completely agree with the Chair of the Justice Committee. There are serious crimes for which a strong custodial sentence is exactly the right answer, but there are also cases for which short sentences, in particular, are ineffective for rehabilitation and do not serve society well. Prison should be used when appropriate, and we should look to develop alternatives to prison wherever possible.

Gavin Newlands: I am heartened by the Secretary of State’s answers thus far. Last September the prisons Minister, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), said that
“the evidence on what could be done to reduce reoffending by not overusing short prison sentences inappropriately is a good lesson from Scotland from which we wish to learn.”—[Official Report, 4 September 2018; Vol. 646, c. 41.]
At Holyrood, however, the Scottish Conservatives have long campaigned against the presumption against short sentences, claiming it to be a soft-touch approach. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Scottish Conservatives are out of touch in wanting to pursue an old-fashioned and entirely ineffective approach?

David Gauke: I will focus on the approach that I want to take in England and Wales. If we can find effective alternatives to short sentences, it is not a question of pursuing a soft-justice approach, but rather a case of pursuing smart justice that is effective at reducing reoffending and crime. That is the approach that I want to take in England and Wales.

Desmond Swayne: But the full force of the law too often is not very forceful at all, is it?

David Gauke: In reality, sentences and the prison population have gone up in recent years. I maintain that there are circumstances in which significant prison sentences are right as a means of punishment and a demonstration of society’s abhorrence at particular behaviours, but we also have to bear it in mind that some people who go to prison end up in a cycle of reoffending, with little achieved to the benefit of society or those individuals.

Probation Service

Alex Cunningham: If he will make it his policy to return the probation service to the public sector.

Grahame Morris: If he will make it his policy to return the probation service to the public sector.

David Gauke: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer Questions 2 and 19 together.

John Bercow: Order. I think that the Secretary of State’s intended grouping of Question 2 is with Question 18, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), who was looking mildly perturbed, but whom I hope will now be greatly reassured.

Grahame Morris: indicated assent.

John Bercow: It is good to see the hon. Gentleman reassured.

David Gauke: We have made it clear that the probation system needs to improve, and we have taken decisive action to end current community rehabilitation company contracts and to develop more robust arrangements to protect the public and tackle reoffending. We have seen examples of good and innovative work from CRCs in Cumbria, where probation is being adapted to a rural setting, and in London, where CRCs are working with the Mayor’s office on programmes to rehabilitate offenders involved in knife crime.
I believe that public, private and voluntary organisations all have a role to play. The reforms that we are making are crucial to integrating the system better so that different providers can work more effectively together, and we will set out our proposals later this year.

Alex Cunningham: I am grateful for that comprehensive answer but, in the light of the prisons Minister’s praise at our last session of Justice questions for the not-for-profit Durham Tees Valley CRC—one of the best, if not the best, at inspection, and, according to Napo, also one of the best to work for—may I ask how the Secretary of State will protect this rare success story, given that his own reprivatisation plans are set to allow security giants such as Sodexo to swallow it up?

David Gauke: I, too, pay tribute to the work of that not-for-profit CRC and its focus on rehabilitating offenders. The expertise and commitment of not-for-profit organisations are vital in helping offenders to turn their lives around, and the changes on which we are working will ensure that the probation system benefits from having a diverse range of providers, while also doing more to deliver operational stability.

Grahame Morris: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, and for drawing attention to the statistics that we have seen in Durham. However, probation failures cause reoffending and place strains on already overburdened police resources. Will the Secretary of State consider meeting police and crime commissioners  such as Ron Hogg, Durham’s police, crime and victims commissioner, who happens to head the only outstanding police force in the country, to discuss the devolution of probation services so that they can be tailor-made to meet the needs of local communities?

David Gauke: I have already met a number of police and crime commissioners to talk about this very issue, but I should be happy to meet Mr Hogg, as well as other PCCs, to discuss these matters again. We want to ensure that PCCs can play a full and active role in this process, and I am heartened by the determination and willingness of many of them to do all that they can to help to develop it and to ensure that we have a strong probation system.

Prisons: Criminal Activity and Drug Abuse

Robert Goodwill: What steps the Government have taken to tackle criminal activity and drug abuse in the prisons in the 10 prisons project.

Rory Stewart: Turning around the problem of drugs in prisons involves focusing on relationships, staff and perimeter security, but for the first time, every one of those 10 prisons will have proper dog teams, X-ray scanners and full airport-style security. I believe that that will drive down the supply of drugs in those prisons, and I expect to be judged on the results.

Robert Goodwill: The Minister won the admiration of the nation when he put his neck on the line in pursuit  of his ambitious targets to reduce drugs and violence in our prisons. What other practical steps is he taking to meet those targets and to ensure that our prisons not only keep prisoners in, but keep drugs out?

Rory Stewart: As well as ensuring that people are searched at the gates, we are investing more in netting and grilles. We are also investing a great deal more in staff training and support. Last week, I was lucky to be able to visit Newbold Revel, our prison officer training college, to see the passing out parade of the new set of individuals who are bringing standards to those 10 prisons.

Stephen Hepburn: Violence in prisons has reached record levels, with assaults on prison officers up by 30%. When will the Government realise that their cuts are causing this crisis in our Prison Service?

Rory Stewart: The assaults on prison officers are genuinely shocking. That is why we have doubled the sentence for such assaults, and why we are investing in perimeter security. It is also why I have said that if I do not bring down the incidence of that violence, including assaults on prison officers, I will resign.

Victoria Prentis: When I last visited HMP Bullingdon, it was explained to me that much of prisoners’ mail is saturated with drugs. How is the plan to photocopy mail where appropriate going?

Rory Stewart: Every one of the 10 prisons where we are running the pilots will either photocopy the mail or put it through it through a Rapiscanner, which will identify Spice and other psychoactive substances to ensure that prisoners cannot use mail to bring drugs into prison.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. In calling the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), I congratulate him on his tie, inserting only the modest caveat that it is perhaps a tad understated.

Barry Sheerman: This is my celebration tie for Autism Day, Mr Speaker—a little bit of flamboyance for autism.
Nobody wants our prisons to have a culture of drugs and violence, but can the Minister imagine what it is  like to be in prison and not to be guilty? I co-chair the all-party group on miscarriages of justice—we are meeting tonight. Some people do 18 years in prison are then found not guilty, but have no compensation and no reintroduction into society. When are we going to do something about that?

Rory Stewart: I think that this is a slightly different subject, but I would be very happy to sit down with the hon. Gentleman to look at the rare but tragic cases when somebody is wrongfully convicted.

Domestic Abuse Victims

Robert Halfon: What support his Department provides to victims of domestic abuse in taking abusive former partners to court.

Edward Argar: Domestic abuse is a dreadful crime. We are determined to ensure that those who commit it face justice and that the victims of it are supported and feel able to come forward. A range of measures is available to support victims in taking their abuser to court, including eligibility to apply for special measures, and the use of video links and recorded evidence. However, we believe that we can and should do more, as we set out in the draft Domestic Abuse Bill, which was published last week.

Robert Halfon: In June 2012, Eystna Blunnie, a 20-year-old, heavily pregnant young woman, was unlawfully beaten to death by her abusive former partner—her unborn child also died—despite the abuser being known to the authorities and the Crown Prosecution Service. Will my hon. Friend take steps to strengthen the support and protection available to victims of domestic abuse to help to prevent such tragedies from ever happening again and so that such a situation never occurs in Harlow again?

Edward Argar: I was sorry to hear about the dreadful and tragic case of Eystna Blunnie in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Strengthening the protections that are available to victims lies at the heart of the draft Bill. Its provisions include automatic eligibility for special measures in court for domestic abuse victims and, to better protect victims, a new domestic abuse protection order to enforce  more stringent conditions on suspected and convicted perpetrators where breach will constitute a criminal offence.

Louise Haigh: Before Christmas, Sammy Woodhouse and I met the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer). Will the Minister update the House on the action taken after that meeting, particularly in relation to guidance issued to local authorities on exemption regarding the duty to notify? Is the Department willing to conduct a review to get to the heart of the scale of the issue that affected Sammy?

Edward Argar: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady and to Sammy for their work in highlighting the terrible situation and looking at what more can be done. I know that she had a positive meeting with my hon. and learned Friend and we are determined that the family court system should never be used to coerce or re-victimise those who have been abused. My hon. and learned Friend is liaising with the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services in respect of councils’ obligations and has invited the president of the family division to consider clarifying the practice direction on notification.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Public Accounts Committee held an inquiry into children’s social services yesterday. Does my hon. Friend agree that domestic violence is one of the key causes of the growth in the number of children being taken into care in local authorities? Will the Department work closely with the Department for Education to ensure that children’s social services have the information and finances that they need to deal with that growing problem?

Edward Argar: I can offer my hon. Friend the reassurance that we are working extremely closely with colleagues across Government to do that. We often see that some of the young people who end up in the criminal justice system have come from homes or families where they have witnessed domestic abuse. It is incumbent on us all to do all we can to tackle that.

Gloria De Piero: Practice direction 12J requires that a court must be sure, when ordering parental contact, that neither the child nor the other parent is at risk of harm. The direction makes it clear that this is an obligatory requirement, but campaign groups and lawyers say that its implementation is patchy, as we saw in the Sammy Woodhouse case. Will the Government task the new domestic abuse commissioner with responsibility for monitoring its implementation, with annual reports of any breaches to be laid before Parliament?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her question, and I should have said in response to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) that I knew that the shadow Minister was concerned about this case and had done work on it. As I have set out, in the shorter term we have asked the president of the family division to look at that practice guidance to see whether it is working as it should. The hon. Lady mentioned the domestic abuse commissioner. In the context of the draft Domestic Abuse Bill, the commissioner will have powers to investigate these matters. I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady, as my opposite number, to discuss how that might work in practice.

Prisons: Violence

Vicky Ford: What steps the Government are taking to tackle violence in prisons.

David Gauke: The scourge of violence in prisons must be tackled. To do this, we need to get the basics right. We have strengthened the frontline with more than 4,300 new staff so that we can run full, purposeful regimes, and we have moved to a new key worker model to support prisoners. We are also supporting prisoners with measures to tackle drugs and to make the physical environment in prisons decent and safe.

Vicky Ford: We know that a positive working relationship between staff and prisoners is key to running safe, decent prisons. Will my right hon. Friend tell us more about what is being done to improve the relationship between staff and prisoners?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I pay tribute to the work that she does in this area. I know that she is a frequent visitor to Chelmsford prison in her capacity as its constituency MP. In fact, I understand that she might almost have her own cell there, such is the regularity of her visits. She highlights the important relationship between prison officers and prisoners. We are introducing the key workers programme across the prison estate, and the early signs are that it is making a positive difference in terms of relationships and of reducing violence. There is more work that we need to do, but I am pleased that we are able to do that and to ensure that prison officers get the training they need to make best use of it.

Catherine West: Out-of-control drug use in prisons fuels violence. Yesterday I met the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), the Health Minister who is dealing with this issue. I want to know what more can be done both before a prisoner enters the prison system and afterwards, as well as how we can ensure that during that crucial period when he—it is usually a “he”—is in there, he can have proper drug rehab so that his time in prison is not wasted.

David Gauke: The hon. Lady makes an important point. We have formed a drugs taskforce and we are working with law enforcement and with health partners across Government to restrict supply, reduce demand and build recovery. The taskforce is developing a national drug strategy, which will provide all prisons with guidance and examples of best practice to support them in tackling drugs. I should also point out that we are investing £6 million in 10 of the most challenging prisons to tackle drug supply and reduce demand. There is a greater focus on drug detection, on dedicated search teams, on body scanners and on improved perimeter defences.

Alex Chalk: Purposeful activity for prisoners is vital to encouraging rehabilitation and reducing volatility in our jails. What steps are being taken to drive down the number of prisoners who are locked up for 23 hours a day, which does not help to bring about peace in our prisons?

David Gauke: I agree with my hon. Friend. The additional 4,300 prison officers will help to ensure that we can do this. A particular area on which I have been keen to focus is the education and employment strategy, which will ensure that we provide those prisoners who are prepared to take responsibility with the opportunity to educate themselves and prepare themselves for the world of work. I am very keen that we should continue to do that.

David Lammy: We found out from the Secretary of State’s Department last week the alarming fact that 51% of our youth offenders now come from a black minority or ethnic background. That puts us in a worse position than the United States. Given that context in our prisons, will he revisit my review, and may I meet him urgently to discuss how we can accelerate progress?

David Gauke: I am grateful for that question, and I would be happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman. I know he regularly meets the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), on this subject. I am also concerned about the proportion of BAME children in custody, which is something we take very seriously. My Department has introduced a dedicated team within the youth justice policy unit with a key focus on explaining or changing disproportionate outcomes for BAME children in the justice system.

Richard Burgon: The Justice Secretary has been in post for just over a year. In that time, every set of prison safety figures has shown violence spiralling out of control. In January 2018, assaults were up 12% year on year, reaching new record highs. In April 2018, assaults were up 13%, reaching new record highs. In October 2018, assaults were up 20%, reaching new record highs. And last week we saw yet more record highs—a record high for assaults on staff, a record high for prisoner-on-prisoner violence and a record high for self-harm. Does he agree that his Government have lost control of violence in our prisons? When will they get a grip?

David Gauke: Clearly, the figures set out last week, which relate to what was happening in July, August and September 2018, are not acceptable and we need to bring those numbers down. That is why we have increased the number of prison officer staff, it is why we are focusing on purposeful activity and it is why we are taking steps to reduce both the supply and the demand for drugs. We are seeing some encouraging signs, but I do not want to make too much of that as yet. We need to wait to see the numbers in April, when we will have details about the last quarter of 2018. I am beginning to feel that we have turned the corner, that the additional staff are making a difference and that the measures we are taking are making a difference, but I fully accept that much work still needs to be done.

Prison Officer Safety

Andrew Bridgen: What progress the Government have made on improving the safety of prison officers.

Gordon Henderson: What progress the Government have made on improving the safety of prison officers.

David Gauke: We do not tolerate violence against our dedicated and hard-working prison officers. We are strengthening frontline officer numbers and rolling out the key worker scheme so that we can improve prisoner-staff relationships and tackle the causes of violence. We are giving officers the tools they need, like body-worn cameras and PAVA spray, to respond where incidents occur.

Andrew Bridgen: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer but, in order to protect prison officers, what measures are the Government taking to ensure that the police and the justice system take crimes committed in prison as seriously as those committed outside in the community?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and it is important that crimes committed within prisons are taken seriously, just as crimes committed outside prisons are taken seriously. We have taken a number of steps, and I have already alluded to some of the measures we are taking to help prison officers in these circumstances. We also recently changed the law to strengthen sentences against those who commit crimes against prison officers.

Gordon Henderson: A week before Christmas, one of my local prison officers, Ashley McLean, received horrendous facial injuries when he was violently attacked by a prisoner who was allegedly high on Spice. This was not an isolated incident. It happens every day of every week in one or other of our prisons. Much of that violent behaviour, as we have heard, is caused by drugs, so what steps are being taken to increase sentences for those found guilty of supplying drugs to inmates?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend rightly highlights an horrific incident, and I know the prisons Minister has already replied to a letter from him on this matter. We are fully committed to addressing the significant increase we have seen in the number of assaults on our hard-working prison staff. The new Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 increases the penalty for those who assault emergency workers, including prison officers, and I understand that the police are continuing to investigate this particular incident.

Jo Stevens: We have already heard that assaults against prison officers are at record levels, and those levels are rising at a record rate. Why is the Secretary of State more interested in taking prison officers to court for raising health and safety concerns than in sitting around the table and working with them to develop an urgent violence reduction strategy?

David Gauke: We are very focused on reducing violence, which is why we are taking the measures that we are: introducing the extra staff; giving prison officers access to PAVA; increasing the use of body-worn cameras; and increasing measures to stop drugs getting into prisons—as we have heard, they can often be a driver of this violence. So that is precisely what we are doing and will continue to do.

Chris Evans: I recently met someone who trained to be a prison officer and left the job after six months. He told me that the three months of training left him ill-equipped to deal with the violence and intimidation, and to deal with prisoners with mental health problems. The Secretary of State will know that this is not an isolated case—it is widespread. What is he doing to improve training for prison officers so that they are equipped to deal with these incidents and have support when they are encountering this type of violence?

David Gauke: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are constantly looking at ways in which we can improve the training for prison officers. The prisons Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), has been very focused on that. We have managed to increase the number of prison officers significantly—as I say, the figure is up by 4,300. We are now seeing those prison officers gaining more experience and becoming increasingly effective. As I say, there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic that we are moving in the right direction, but there is still much more that needs to be done.

Tom Pursglove: What specific assessment has the Secretary of State made of the opportunities associated with the use of body-worn cameras by prison officers, given the successes we have seen in policing?

David Gauke: Again, my hon. Friend is right to highlight this issue. The increased use of body-worn cameras can help to ensure that we have evidence that can ensure that wrongdoing by prisoners can be brought to book—it can enable prosecutions to be brought. It also provides an ability to ensure that the truth can always be discovered, which is important. Body-worn cameras are not the sole answer, but they are part of an answer on how to bring the number of these incidents down. The nearly 6,000 additional body-worn cameras, alongside staff training, can help us to move in the right direction.

Gavin Newlands: Every assault on a prison officer is, of course, one too many. In the last full year, there were five times fewer serious assaults on prison officers in Scotland than there were in English and Welsh prisons. Given that stark contrast, and the fact that while this Government were slashing prison officer numbers by nearly a third their numbers in Scotland actually rose, will the Secretary of State meet the Scottish Government to discuss what he could learn from Scotland’s approach to this issue as well?

David Gauke: We have a co-operative relationship with the Scottish Government and that will continue. Let me point out that since October 2016 we have seen an increase in prison officer numbers of 4,300, which is to be welcomed. At one stage, people said, “Those are new numbers but they are very inexperienced”, but of course as each month goes by those prison officers are gaining experience and confidence. I believe we will see improvements in the months and years ahead.

Prisoner Transfer Agreements

Philip Hollobone: How many (a) compulsory and (b) voluntary prisoner transfer agreements the UK has with other countries.

Rory Stewart: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for advocating on this issue consistently and for reinforcing a policy that has led to nearly 45,000 foreign national offenders being deported. In answer to the question, let me say that 46 of the 110 prisoner transfer agreements we have are compulsory. However, it is worth pointing out that, were we to leave the European Union with no deal and no transition period, we would lose 26 of those and face significantly greater challenges in deporting foreign national offenders who constitute nearly 40% of the cohort.

Philip Hollobone: I understand that under those 26 EU agreements only about 200 prisoners have been compulsorily transferred to other EU countries, so that would make little difference. The point is that at any one time 10% of our prison population is made up of foreign national offenders. The best way to reduce overcrowding is to send these people back to prison in their own country. Will the Minister negotiate more compulsory prisoner transfer agreements so that we can get these people back to prisons in their own abode?

Rory Stewart: I agree strongly with what my hon. Friend says, and indeed we are actively engaged in this; my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor will be in Romania to discuss these issues, and I am meeting the Albanian Justice Minister this afternoon. But it is important to understand that, if we are going to put someone back into prison in another country, that country’s police, courts and prison service need to be onside, and that is a diplomatic challenge.

David Drew: One of the saddest groups in our prisons are those women from abroad, usually with children, who have been duped into being drug mules. In the past, the Government have helped with the building of prisons abroad to allow those women to go back to their country of origin; is that still this Government’s policy?

Rory Stewart: As a former Minister in the Department for International Development, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we remain open to that. We have recently faced problems in Jamaica because there has been political resistance, not from us but from the Jamaican Government, to British development money being used in that way. We remain open to investment in the rule of law, and if it helps us to return foreign national offenders, at the same time as helping prisoners in that country, we will do that.

Court Closures and Staffing

Helen Hayes: What assessment he has made of the effect of recent (a) changes in court staffing and (b) court closures on access to justice.

Lucy Frazer: I assure the hon. Lady that any decision to close a court is taken incredibly carefully, but in circumstances in which 41% of courts were operating at half their available capacity in 2016-17, it is right that the Ministry of Justice considers how best to spend its resources. We are investing £1 billion in our courts, bringing them up to date, improving back-office systems and making it easier for people to access justice.

Helen Hayes: Three years ago, I expressed concerns about the impact that the closure of Lambeth county court would have on the efficiency of the court system and access to justice for my constituents. Lambeth was closed two years ago and the workload was moved to Clerkenwell and Shoreditch. Yesterday, I heard from a local legal aid solicitor that Clerkenwell and Shoreditch county court is completely overwhelmed, that delays of six to eight months to receive court directions are common, and that the contact centre cannot provide up-to-date information on cases. When will the Government act to sort out this shambolic mess?

Lucy Frazer: I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss that specific situation. The MOJ is taking a number of steps to improve court timeliness, which is of course important. We are digitalising a number of services—people can now track their tribunal appeal online—and recruiting more judges to tribunals, with more than 225 recruited over the past year. I am happy to discuss that particular case.

Richard Burgon: Under the smokescreen of a digital revolution, the Government have taken the axe to our court system. A victim of crime who wants justice through their day in court will now have a much more difficult experience, perhaps having to travel much further after the closure of hundreds of courts, and perhaps finding that the help and support they need are lacking after the sacking of thousands of court staff. Given the recent chaos, instead of forcing through yet more court reforms, will the Minister agree to a moratorium on further cuts and closures, at least until this House has been offered a chance to scrutinise changes that will affect access to justice for decades to come?

Lucy Frazer: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the fact that an IT issue affected courts towards the end of January. That disruption was caused by an infrastructure issue in our supplier’s data and I apologise for any issues for people who were affected. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have consulted on what principles will guide any future court closures, and that consultation has now come to an end.

Victims: Policy Alignment

Huw Merriman: What steps the Government are taking to ensure that measures in the victims strategy, the forthcoming violence against women and girls strategy and domestic abuse Bill are aligned.

Mike Wood: What steps the Government are taking to ensure that measures in the victim strategy, the forthcoming violence against women and girls strategy and domestic abuse Bill are aligned.

Edward Argar: The victims strategy is the first time that we have looked in such detail and in such a joined-up way at how we treat victims of crime. The strategy provides the vision for the Government’s approach to victims. The Government’s violence against women and girls strategy refresh and draft domestic abuse Bill have  been developed with this vision in mind, and have been designed to sit within the framework of the wider victims strategy. The Bill is a joint Home Office and MOJ Bill, with close ministerial and official-level working to ensure close alignment.

Huw Merriman: To return to a theme raised on the Opposition Benches earlier, there is great support on the Government Benches for closing the loophole that may allow convicted rapists to gain notification rights to children conceived through those heinous crimes. Will the Minister assure me that if it turns out that practice directions will not have the requisite strength, legislation will be looked at? When he meets the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) to discuss the possibility of the commissioner having powers with regard to practice direction 12C, will he consider including practice direction 12J under those same powers? That will also give safeguards to women and children.

Edward Argar: Building on the answer that I gave to the shadow Minister, I hear what my hon. Friend says and I know his work in this area and his commitment on the issue. I am very happy to look at the points that he raises. It is a draft Bill and I very much hope that he will consider putting his views to us in that process.

Mike Wood: For many victims of domestic violence and coercive control, like my constituent Chloe, and for their families, the process of giving evidence and preparing for trial adds to the pain of the original abuse. What is the Minister doing to support vulnerable witnesses, including victims of domestic abuse?

Edward Argar: We are determined to improve the family justice response to vulnerable witnesses, including people such as my hon. Friend’s constituent Chloe and victims of domestic abuse. Family judges have a range of powers to make sure that difficult courtroom situations are handled sensitively. In particular, we are looking to give the courts a specific power to prevent perpetrators of certain offences, including domestic abuse, from cross-examining their victims in person. We will also give the courts the power, in certain circumstances, to appoint a lawyer to conduct cross-examination on the preventive party’s behalf.

Victims Law

Mary Robinson: When the Government plan to consult on a victims law.

Edward Argar: In the victims strategy published on 10 September, we committed to consult on the detail of a victims law in the course of 2019. In taking that work forward, we have already begun discussions with both victims and victims’ groups. We will consult on amending the victims code before bringing forward detailed proposals for a victims law. That will allow us to update entitlements to ensure that they better reflect victims’ needs before considering the detail of legislation.

Mary Robinson: I welcome the Department’s victims strategy, particularly the review of the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The Manchester Arena bombing almost two years ago left people with serious and life-changing injuries and brought to light questions about the scheme’s suitability in providing support for  victims of terrorism. Will my hon. Friend outline what plans are being considered by the Department to improve support for victims of major tragedies such as the Manchester bombing?

Edward Argar: The Government are committed to ensuring that victims of terrorist attacks such as the Manchester Arena bombing receive the help and support that they need. In the victims strategy, we set out our intention to consult on changes to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, including considering how the scheme can better serve victims of terrorism. Terms of reference were published on 18 December 2018, with the review expected to report this year.

Derek Twigg: My constituent, Helen Hill, whose husband was murdered in 2002, has started a petition that has more than 8,000 names. The petition is about having supervision for life for murderers. I am sure the Minister understands the suffering that she has endured and is enduring to this day. Is not she the sort of person to whom he should be talking as a result of this, and will he please agree to meet me and Mrs Hill in the near future?

Edward Argar: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that specific case and I am very happy to meet him.

Farmer Review

Fiona Bruce: What progress the Government have made on implementing the recommendations of the Farmer review, published in August 2017.

Rory Stewart: I pay tribute to Lord Farmer for this review. We have accepted all its recommendations and have implemented more than half of them. I meet Lord Farmer very regularly, most recently last Sunday, because we realise that good family ties can reduce reoffending by 37%.

Fiona Bruce: Women prisoners face particular difficulties when parted from their families—as do their families. What consideration has been given to this issue?

Rory Stewart: The specific issue raised by my hon. Friend relates to women in the criminal justice system, many of whom are the primary care givers. So putting those women in prison has a very serious impact on their children, many of whom, unfortunately, then go on to commit crime themselves. We have therefore commissioned Lord Farmer to do a review looking specifically at the family ties of women.

Criminal Justice: Children

Bill Esterson: What steps he has taken to reduce the number of children in the criminal justice system.

Edward Argar: As far as possible, we believe that children should be diverted from the criminal justice system through liaison and diversion services. A custodial  sentence should be used only as a last resort. As we have seen over the past 10 years, the number of children entering the criminal justice system has fallen by 86%, with the number getting custodial sentences falling equally dramatically.

Bill Esterson: According to the latest research, between 40,000 and 120,000 children are born every year with foetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Those with FASD often do not understand consequences, so will the Minister look at the special courts that have been set up in Canada, designed to reduce reoffending by helping those with FASD to understand the consequences of their actions?

Edward Argar: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. If he writes to me with more details, I will be happy to look at the matter.

John Bercow: If the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) were standing on this question, I would call her; if she does not, I will not.

Pauline Latham: rose—

John Bercow: But she is doing so, so I will.

Pauline Latham: As well as the importance of employment opportunities for ex-offenders, does the Minister agree that the provision of affordable housing for former prisoners is a significant factor in preventing reoffending, and will he outline what steps he is taking on this?

John Bercow: Just a heads up in case the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) requires it—the same would apply to him in a moment.

Jim Shannon: rose—

John Bercow: No, no, not now. The hon. Gentleman can work up his question while the Minister is responding to the hon. Lady. [Interruption.] No, no, I am giving him preparation time; he should be thanking me.

Edward Argar: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) makes an important point about the importance of stable accommodation, which can play a key part in reducing reoffending and giving people the opportunity to get their life back on the right track. We are working with partners across the Government, local authorities and others to ensure that the system works for those people.

Jim Shannon: rose—

John Bercow: We are all now uncontrollably excited.

Jim Shannon: You are most kind, Mr Speaker. Given that the latest report published shows the lowest reoffending rate in the 12-year time series for which data is available, will the Minister outline the correlation between training and education in prison, and employment and a clean slate? Will he also give us the most recent reoffending rates for those who have gained qualifications while in prison?

Edward Argar: Reducing reoffending is a key goal of the prison system, as we set out in the White Paper. Plans such as the New Futures Network show that we are serious about this. Research published by the Ministry of Justice last year showed that prisoners who have undertaken learning activity have a significantly lower reoffending rate on release than their peers, with a one-year proven reoffending rate that is 7.5 percentage points lower. Offenders who found P45 employment in the year after leaving prison had one-year reoffending rates that were six to nine percentage points lower than similar offenders who did not find employment.

Yasmin Qureshi: While the total number of children in prison has declined over the years, the number of black and minority ethnic children in the prison system has remained static. How can the Lord Chancellor reassure BME communities that their children are not being disproportionately targeted?

Edward Argar: The shadow Minister makes an important point, building on the point made earlier by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I am concerned about the black, Asian and minority ethnic people in custody. As the Lord Chancellor has said, we take this matter very seriously. This runs through our response to the Lammy review and the race disproportionality work that we undertake in the Department. I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady on this topic, if she would like  me to.

Prison Overcrowding

Mohammad Yasin: What steps he is taking to reduce prison overcrowding.

Janet Daby: What steps he is taking to reduce prison overcrowding.

David Gauke: We are making good progress with Wellingborough and Glen Parva Prisons, which will be modern and provide uncrowded capacity and will open in 2021 and 2022 respectively. This is against a background where the long-term population trend has put a stress on the prison estate. I am pleased that the prison population has decreased by around 2,000 in the past year. We will continue to look into how we can ensure further reductions, including looking at better community sentences. Our new prison estate will have up to 10,000 new uncrowded prison places, creating the physical conditions for governors to achieve better educational, training and rehabilitation outcomes.

Mohammad Yasin: Nearly two weeks ago, I raised concerns about broken screens at HMP Bedford that have resulted in my constituents having to put up with loud, intimidating and lewd behaviour from prisoners, and daily intrusions on to their properties by criminals smuggling contraband through their gardens and over the prison wall. The Minister committed to immediately raising the matter with the governor. Will he confirm what action has been taken?

David Gauke: The Prisons Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), has indeed visited Bedford Prison and is in contact with  the governor. The prison is introducing new scanners to help to address some of these issues. We will look at anything that we can do to ensure that no burden is placed on the local community.

Janet Daby: Overcrowding in our prisons leads to inhumane conditions and puts pressure on provision, services and training. That is unacceptable. The public expect reform and rehabilitation. What is the Minister doing to address this issue, as well as the over-representation of black men within our prisons?

David Gauke: I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of rehabilitation. We have stressed that point, and it has been stressed a number of times this morning. Of course we want to bring overcrowding levels down. It would be fair to say that overcrowding levels have been pretty consistent; they are essentially at the same level as in 2010. On the disproportionate numbers of people from ethnic minorities within the prison system, we take that seriously, as the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), has just pointed out. I look forward to meeting the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) to discuss this shortly.

Maria Caulfield: One source of overcrowding is the indefinite detention of prisoners using the imprisonment for public protection—IPP—sentences, which were introduced under the previous Labour Government but ruled unlawful in 2007. Why are 3,300 prisoners still in prison having served their sentence? Many of them—51%—have served five years or more after their sentence and are still in prison to this day.

David Gauke: Over time, more of those IPP prisoners are being released, but the Parole Board has to make a judgment in each individual case on whether there is a risk to society from releasing a particular individual. Those judgments can be difficult. Sometimes the Parole Board faces criticism when it does decide to release somebody in these circumstances. These matters have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

Imran Hussain: Last year, almost half of prisoners held at HMP Birmingham were held in overcrowded cells, contributing to the crisis of violence that six months ago forced the Government to step in and take control away from G4S. On the last occasion I asked about this, the Minister of State was unable to give a response, so will the Secretary of State now confirm that he will not be handing HMP Birmingham back to G4S, and will he draw the obvious conclusion that privatisation has been a failure in our prison system?

David Gauke: We will not hand HMP Birmingham back if it is not safe for us to do so. I am afraid that the attack on any involvement of the private sector in the prison system that we hear from Labour Front Benchers does not represent a balanced approach. We have to look at the successes that exist within the prison system, where the private sector has run very effective prisons. That cannot be ignored, notwithstanding the very real problems that exist, and have existed, with Birmingham.

Edward Davey: rose—

John Bercow: Finally, before we move on to topicals, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he is an extraordinarily senior and distinguished denizen of the House, but he will have to be a little patient and he may get his chance in due course, queuing up with the rest. Meanwhile, he will, I am sure, celebrate the success of his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone).

Prisoner Rehabilitation

Jamie Stone: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of prisoners’ access to rehabilitation programmes.

Rory Stewart: Over time, we have invested more and more in this, particularly in individualised rehabilitation programmes. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Stephanie Covington and Edwina Grosvenor, in particular, for their trauma-informed approach to counselling.

Jamie Stone: When we think about prisoners, we should understand that we all have a past that we cannot change but a future that we can change, hopefully this side of eternity. Many prisoners out there have records of good conduct and are desperately trying to turn over a new leaf. Surely we should therefore be doing everything in our power to encourage still more firms, companies and other organisations to offer suitable short-term placements to these people, because those placements can be so successful in terms of rehabilitation.

Rory Stewart: Absolutely. It totally transforms a prisoner’s life to have a job, and it leads them to be less likely to reoffend, therefore protecting the public. I pay tribute particularly to the work of Tempus Novo in Leeds, which brings businesses into prison, with two experienced ex-prison officers, and helps companies to become comfortable with employing ex-offenders, thus ultimately changing lives and protecting the public.

Topical Questions

Alan Mak: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

David Gauke: Yesterday, I published my review of the Parole Board rules and the Government’s response to the public consultation about creating a new reconsideration mechanism for Parole Board decisions. I have decided to proceed with changes to the Parole Board rules that will introduce such a mechanism later this year. Our report also sets out additional reforms that will bring greater transparency and improvements for victims. I announced the launch of a tailored review of the Parole Board that will consider whether more fundamental reforms are necessary in the longer term, including those that may require primary legislation.

Alan Mak: New technology can play a key role in reducing the flow of contraband into our prisons. Will my right hon. Friend outline what support and financial investment his Department is providing in that area?

David Gauke: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are strengthening the countermeasures against contraband for every route into prison, and technology is an important part of that. In 2017, we invested £2 million in modern technology, including hand-held and portable mobile phone detection devices. In 2018, we invested a further £7 million to enhance security in prisons through scanners, improved searching techniques and phone-blocking technology. In the work that my hon. Friend the Prisons Minister has done with 10 of our most challenging prisons, he is emphasising the use of technology to search letters, bags and people, and he announced last week that those prisons all now have scanners that can detect drugs on clothes and mail.

Richard Burgon: There is deep concern that the Government want to use the cover of Brexit to roll back citizens’ rights. Such fears have been further fuelled by the recent failure of Ministers in a letter to the House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee to rule out repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 post Brexit. Labour introduced the Human Rights Act. We will fight any attempt by the Tories to undermine it or dilute our hard-won rights. Will the Secretary of State give a reassurance today that the Government will not repeal or reform the Human Rights Act in the aftermath of our departure from the European Union?

David Gauke: We certainly have no plans to do so, but on the subject of human rights, I am a little surprised that we are getting lectured by the hon. Gentleman, who will not condemn the Venezuelan regime.

Douglas Ross: Body-worn video cameras are available to every prison officer in England and Wales, but they are not routinely provided in Scotland. Will the Minister outline the benefits to both prisoners and officers of those cameras and encourage the Scottish Government to follow this Government’s lead?

Rory Stewart: We often pay tribute to the Scottish Government, but I am proud to say that we are ahead of them on this. We have rolled out body-worn cameras, which are making an enormous difference to safety in prisons. We are also ahead of the Scottish Government in having fully smoke-free prisons. There is something, at least, that Scotland can learn from us.

Alex Sobel: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is unconscionable that the workers who clean his offices and the security guards who keep the Ministry of Justice safe are not paid the living wage? Will he commit today to finally paying them a wage they can decently live on, with terms and conditions that mean they can take a family holiday?

David Gauke: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the cleaners and security guards are employed by private contractors, and that is a matter for them.

David Davies: Following the sexual assault of four female prisoners by a male claiming to be transgender, what additional advice has been given to prison authorities about housing transgender prisoners?

Edward Argar: We take the Karen White case very seriously. In the light of that, we are reviewing both the content of prison service instruction 17/2016, which sets the policy on these questions, and its application. New guidelines will be published shortly, to ensure that it continues to strike the right balance between ensuring that all female prisoners are kept safe, that transgender prisoners have their rights respected and that we comply with our legal obligations under statute.

Mary Glindon: Can the Minister tell the House whether it is a requirement for prison governors to stay up to date with control and restraint training to receive the required hours addition allowance?

Rory Stewart: That is a highly technical question. I will look into it and get back to the hon. Lady.

Vicky Ford: People were shocked to read that over half the knife crime in London is associated with teenagers or children. Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that he is working with the Home Office to ensure that the new knife crime protection orders will effectively target children who are carrying knives and not end up putting into custody children who are at risk but have never carried a knife?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are working with the Home Office to ensure that these orders are truly preventive in nature and put children on the right path away from a life of crime. These orders will give the police the opportunity to intervene earlier, and the court can include in the order a range of conditions that can be both prohibitive and proactive. They will be used only if the court is satisfied on the balance of probability that the child has carried a knife, or if they have been convicted of a relevant criminal offence and the order is necessary to protect the public or prevent crime. Sentencing is, of course, for the judge, but we are consulting on these proposals.

John Bercow: The Secretary of State is providing much exercise for the knee muscles of Opposition Members. It is an important fact of public interest that I think thus far he has not noticed, but of which he may wish to take account.

Stephanie Peacock: The Government continue to drag their feet on publishing their review of legal aid. Will the Minister tell the House exactly when we can expect it by?

Lucy Frazer: We said that we would publish the review early in the new year, and we will be publishing it early in the new year. The hon. Lady should expect it shortly. This is a serious matter that takes time. I would  like to quote the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who told the Law Society Gazette early last year
“that I would rather the government take this seriously and take their time with it.”
That is exactly what we are doing.

Priti Patel: Access to justice was denied to a constituent of mine who had a child taken away from her, after birth, by social services. She has struggled find legal representation because lawyers refuse to take on a local authority with huge financial resources. How will the Government help constituents such as mine?

Lucy Frazer: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Care proceedings are incredibly important, and when a child is taken away from their parent, it is a tragic matter that affects them for a long time. My right hon. Friend should be aware that legal aid is available for public law cases. I am very happy to discuss that particular matter with her.

John Spellar: The Minister of State said earlier that the best help for rehabilitation is to have a job. Do we not urgently need to reform the Disclosure and Barring Service system, so we still protect the public from dangerous criminals and dangerous people, but stop blighting the lives of hundreds of thousands of citizens who are trying to turn their lives around?

David Gauke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that question. There has obviously been a recent case on this. We need to look very carefully at this to ensure we get the balance right between protecting the public and ensuring that those who have committed a crime in the past are given a second chance and have the ability to turn their lives around. I am keen to look further at this in the light of the recent judgment.

John Bercow: I call Bob Neill—one sentence.

Bob Neill: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital to ensure continuity of contractual obligations and enforceability of judgments once we leave the EU, which would be prevented by a no-deal outcome?

David Gauke: Yes.

John Bercow: Splendid.

Paul Williams: Nepacs provides a very valuable family support service to Kirklevington Grange Prison in my constituency, but its Big Lottery funding runs out in May. Will the Minister meet me and Nepacs to see whether there is any way we can continue this great service?

Rory Stewart: I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman, and to do so as soon as possible.

Philip Hollobone: Over the past eight years, the number of trials listed at Northampton Crown court without a firm date—categorised as floating trials—has increased from 10% to 23%. Why is this, and what can be done about it?

Lucy Frazer: This is a really important point because it is important that justice is done, and not only done but done speedily. I should emphasise that listing is a judicial function, but it is important that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service works closely with the  judiciary on it. For that reason, I held a roundtable only a few weeks ago—with the judiciary, listing officers, the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association and the Law Society—to solve this issue.

John Bercow: I call David Hanson—in a sentence.

David Hanson: The number of outstanding repairs in prisons is 22,000 higher than this time last year and the number of outstanding planned repairs is 9,000 higher. Why is this?

Rory Stewart: It is largely to do with degradation across the estate, but we have had significant improvements in the performance of Amey recently, and we have of course taken Carillion back in-house so a Government company is now operating there. We therefore expect improvements to go with millions of pounds of extra investment into the estate.

Chi Onwurah: Does the Minister agree with the Taking Control coalition of debt support charities that independent regulation of the bailiff industry is necessary to protect the public from the unscrupulous practices that have driven some of my constituents to the point of suicide and despair?

Lucy Frazer: The hon. Lady is right to highlight that unscrupulous practice by bailiffs is unacceptable. I know that she will be aware that we are looking into the matter, and our call for evidence closes on 17 February, so I encourage anyone who is interested to submit. One of the questions we ask in the consultation is about an independent regulator.

Jo Platt: Studies of offenders have suggested that 45% of young people and 24% of male adults screen positive for a childhood history of ADHD. Will the Minister therefore agree to attend the next meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for attention deficit hyperactive disorder to discuss the ways in which we can reform the criminal justice system?

Rory Stewart: I will do my very best to attend that meeting.

Chris Elmore: Wales has the highest incarceration rate in western Europe, which has risen to 154 per 100,000 of the population. Custodial sentences are also up in Wales but have dropped 16% in England. What more can Ministers do to bring about a bespoke solution for Welsh prisoners and to try to improve the criminal justice system in Wales?

Rory Stewart: The big transformation that will take place in Wales is bringing probation back fully under Government control, so we will have a much closer connection between prisons, probation and the devolved authorities. In the Welsh context, we think that is particularly suitable for the devolved Administration and should address some of those concerns.

Wes Streeting: Why is it that grown men in their 30s and 40s involved in county lines cases are escaping jail, even though we know that their trafficking in drugs and children is blighting the lives of children growing up in communities such as mine?

Rory Stewart: This is an enormously important issue. It is fundamentally a question for the police and Crown Prosecution Service, but I absolutely agree that those people should be prosecuted and put into jail.

John Bercow: I call a south-west London knight, a former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and, by all accounts, a cerebral denizen of the House of Commons, Sir Edward Davey.

Edward Davey: Thank you, Mr Speaker, especially for allowing me to exercise my knees more than usual today.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the offer and acceptance of payments to and by an MP for the benefit of their constituents by a Minister of the Crown in an attempt to influence votes in this House could represent breaches of sections 1 and 2 of the Bribery Act 2010?

David Gauke: I am loth to provide legal advice, but the right hon. Gentleman has clearly raised a significant point. I would like to hear more of what he is saying and I am happy to discuss this with him. He is clearly alluding to something, but I am afraid that I am not quite aware what it is.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE

John Bercow: Before we move to the Urgent Question in the name of the right hon. Member for Tottenham, I have a brief announcement to make to the House.
Her Majesty the Queen has been pleased to approve that Dr John Benger be appointed Under Clerk of the Parliaments—that is to say, Clerk of the House of Commons—in succession to Sir David Natzler KCB who will retire in March.
For the benefit of colleagues and others who take an interest in our proceedings, I can say that Her Majesty’s approval of the appointment of Dr Benger followed an open competition and selection process composed of an independent non-executive member and four members of the House of Commons Commission—myself, the Leader of the House, the shadow Leader of the House and Stewart Hosie MP.
I wish to emphasise that it was a robust and rigorous process and that Dr Benger was the unanimous choice of the selection panel. For those of you who do not know him, I hope that you will come to do so. He is at present the Clerk Assistant of the House and Managing Director, Chamber and Committees. He has held that post since July 2015. My colleagues on the panel and I have come to know him well over the years. We believe that he has outstanding qualities and that he will be an outstanding successor to the outstanding Clerk who will retire shortly.
I hope that that public information notice is of interest to the House.

WINDRUSH SCHEME

David Lammy: (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the operation of the Windrush scheme.

Sajid Javid: Righting the wrongs done to the Windrush generation has been at the forefront of my priorities as Home Secretary. That is why I apologised on behalf of this Government and our predecessors. History shows that members of the Windrush generation, who have done so much to enrich our country, were wrongly caught up in measures designed to tackle illegal migration long before 2010. We all bear some responsibility for that. This Government are acting to right that wrong. Our Windrush taskforce is helping those who have been affected. We are making it easier for those affected to stay and we have waived all fees. By the end of last year, some 2,450 individuals had been given documentation confirming their status. They were all helped by the taskforce which we set up in April. At least 3,400 have been granted citizenship under the Windrush scheme, which we opened on 30 May 2018.
The taskforce’s vulnerable persons team has provided support to 614 individuals, with 52 cases ongoing, and it continues to receive up to 20 new referrals each week. The taskforce has made 215 referrals to the Department for Work and Pensions to help people to restore or receive benefits, 177 individuals have been given advice and support on issues relating to housing, and 164 individuals have been identified by the historical cases review unit. Eighteen people have been identified who we consider to have suffered detriment due to their right to be in the UK not being recognised. Sadly, three of them are now deceased. I have written to the remaining 15 to apologise.
As part of putting right what has gone wrong, we are putting in place a compensation scheme to address the losses suffered by those affected. We have consulted on this to ensure we get it right, and we will bring forward more detail on the final shape of the compensation scheme as soon as possible, having carefully considered the views submitted. In December, the Home Office also published a policy for providing support in urgent and exceptional circumstances. This set out the approach and decision-making process for such cases. The policy will support those who have an urgent and exceptional need, and compelling reasons for why they cannot wait for the full compensation scheme.
Mr Speaker, I said on the day I became Home Secretary that I am determined to right the wrongs suffered by members of the Windrush generation. Let there be no doubt: my commitment remains resolute.

David Lammy: Home Secretary, I have asked you to make a statement to the House on the operation of the Windrush scheme. Your Department’s treatment of the Windrush generation has been nothing less than a national scandal. In November, we learned that at least 164 Windrush citizens were wrongly removed, detained or stopped at the border by our own Government. Eleven of those who were wrongly deported have died. You have announced three more today. Every single one  of those cases is a shocking indictment of your Government’s pandering to far right racism, sham immigration targets and the dog whistle of the right-wing press. You have spoken about being a second—

John Bercow: Order. I have the highest regard for the right hon. Gentleman. Occasional descent into the use of the word “your” by accident is one thing, but a calculated repetition of the word “your” is not appropriate because a debate is conducted through the third person. I have not made any statement. I am not responsible for any scandal and I mildly resent any suggestion to the contrary. [Interruption.] Well, not this one anyway, as an hon. Lady rightly chunters from a sedentary position. But I do not want to interrupt any further the flow of the right hon. Gentleman’s eloquence, or, for that matter, the eloquence of his flow.

David Lammy: You are quite right, Mr Speaker.
Every single one of these cases is a shocking indictment of this Government’s pandering to far right racism, sham immigration targets and the dog whistle of the right-wing press.
The Home Secretary has spoken about being a second generation migrant himself. On taking this job he promised to do whatever it takes to put this wrong right. We are now 10 months on from when the scandal broke. Not a penny has been paid out to any Windrush victim in a compensation scheme. The independent Windrush lessons learned review has not yet reported. I say to you, Home Secretary, before the review is even complete, why, why are you deporting people? We have heard about deportation flights to Jamaica this week. You have detained up to 50 black British residents and given them open window removal notices. Why are you deporting them, given that this review has not reported and there has been no compensation?
How can you be confident that you are not making the same mistakes? Movement for Justice is working with 26 of those who are at risk of removal. Thirteen first came to the UK as children; nine came under the age of 10. Eleven people have indefinite leave to remain. Another has a British passport. Thirty-six British children will have their parents taken away by this charter flight—once enslaved, then colonised and now repatriated. Why do you say that these children should live without their parents? Why do you say, to the families of black British people who have been killed by your Department’s incompetence, that this is acceptable? That is what happens. We are now 20 years on from the Macpherson review, which found institutional racism in this country. I ask the Home Secretary: why is it that still in this country, black lives matter less?

Sajid Javid: First of all, let me thank the right hon. Gentleman. At least he has raised this important issue of Windrush—it is good at any time to update the House on this, in many different ways—but I have to take issue with his tone. He does himself no good service—a huge disservice—in the way that he speaks and the tone that he has used to suggest that there is even an ounce of racism in this House, and to ignore the facts. He chooses to ignore—[Interruption.] He could have made this into an honourable debate by looking at the actual issues and thinking about how we can help people who have been affected.
The right hon. Gentleman chooses to ignore that, for members of the Windrush generation who have been affected in a wrong way—as I have recognised and as many Ministers have recognised at the Dispatch Box—this began under previous Governments and continued under successive Governments, including the Government that he was part of, when he voted time and time again for compliant environment restrictions. He supported those restrictions on a number of occasions and now he chooses to speak out about some of the inadvertent effects of that.
The right hon. Gentleman also rightly brought up the issue that—as I have said before, including in the House—sadly, some people who were wronged are deceased, but he should know that a number of those people died under a Labour Government. The deportations took place under a Labour Government and he makes no apology for that. The right hon. Gentleman mentions the deportations of foreign national offenders. I think the information that he referred to, if I have understood him correctly, is about a charter flight to Jamaica of foreign national offenders only—every single one of them convicted of a serious crime. The UK Borders Act 2007, which he supported, requires that the Home Secretary issues a deportation order for anyone who is a foreign national offender. It does not matter which part of the world they are from, whether it is the United States, Jamaica, Australia or Canada. That is a legal requirement. If he does not want that to happen, he is asking me to break the law, and he is also saying that a person who is convicted of a serious offence as a foreign national offender should be allowed to stay in this country, so either he has changed his mind or he does not know what he is talking about.
Lastly, the right hon. Gentleman brings up the compensation scheme. He is right to raise that because we are absolutely committed to making sure that those who were wronged receive proper compensation. That is why I appointed an independent person, Martin Forde, QC, who has done an enormous amount of good work on this. He asked for an extension of the compensation scheme so that he could speak to even more people who were affected. I brought that to the House and I accepted that extension, and we are now working through what he and his team have done to come forward with a well thought through compensation scheme that is generous and supports members of that generation. In the meantime, we have put in place the vulnerable persons scheme that I referred to earlier, and an exceptional payments scheme, which has started making payments.
I just say this finally: if the right hon. Gentleman really wants to help, he should reflect on his tone and not use this as some kind of political football.

Philip Hollobone: It was a Labour Government who in 2007 passed the UK Borders Act making it a legal requirement for Her Majesty’s Government to deport foreign national offenders who commit serious crimes in this country. May I support what the Home Secretary has said and urge him to ensure that foreign national offenders who commit crimes are sent back to the countries from where they came, because we do not want them in this country?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend refers to a law, which represents the will of this House, that was passed in 2007, which, I say again, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and many of his colleagues supported, and which requires the Government to deport foreign national offenders who have committed serious offences. None of those being deported are British citizens or members of the Windrush generation, who are exempt under section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971.

Afzal Khan: This morning, the news broke that Ms Sims had been denied help from the Windrush compensation scheme because she was not from the Caribbean. Just like Windrush, this is a result of the Government ignoring credible warnings about the impact of their policies. The National Audit Office found that the Home Office showed a surprising
“lack of curiosity about individuals who may have been affected, and who are not of Caribbean heritage.”
What steps is the Home Secretary taking to ensure that, as Martin Forde QC has recommended, officials are aware that people other than those from the Caribbean are eligible? Will he commit to widening the remit of the Windrush review and compensation scheme? Can he justify Windrush victims being defined so narrowly? Some 186 people were formally refused help from the Windrush scheme. Can he guarantee that none of them was in fact eligible?
We have heard reports that the Home Office is restarting charter flights to Jamaica. Like those of many MPs, my constituency office phone has been ringing off the hook. Some 85,000 people have signed a petition. Why does the Home Secretary consider now an appropriate time to restart these flights? Victims of this scandal have not yet received compensation. The Windrush lessons learned review has not yet reported. A full year after the scandal broke, we do not know how many people have already been detained or deported. The hostile environment remains in place.
I understand that many of the detainees have been convicted of a criminal offence, but after Windrush, the Government have not proved they have the processes in place to make sure the wrong people do not end up on this flight. Will the Home Secretary urgently bring proof to this House that none of the people on the flight is a British citizen or has any other claim to be in this country? I understand the flight is due to leave from a Royal Air Force base. Does he accept that the militarisation of deportations sets a dangerous precedent of deportation happening behind closed doors?

Sajid Javid: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s tone and approach of asking sensible questions, and he deserves answer to them all.
The hon. Gentleman raised the case of Ms Willow Sims, who I heard on the radio this morning. It was the first time I had heard about the case, and I was very concerned. She said she had written to me, which I was interested to hear, and I checked this morning. We received the letter on 28 January, which might help to explain why I have not seen the letter yet. That said, the Department was aware of the case before that, because her Member of Parliament wrote to the Department—in October, I believe—and Ms Sims is now getting the help  she deserves. We will look further at why she was turned down for help by the taskforce, because that should not have happened.
The hon. Gentleman then mentioned the compliant environment. I remind him and the House that what he refers to as the compliant environment, which is about taking action against those who are in the UK illegally—in other words, people who have broken the law—began with laws that were passed under a previous Labour Government in 1997, 1999, 2002 and 2008 and which many of his hon. Friends will have supported. If Labour’s policy is now to abolish all those rules, it should be clear about that.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the compensation scheme, which I have said a bit about already. We are determined to have it in place, and I want it to be as fair and as generous as possible, but, in the meantime, the exceptional payment scheme has begun. I set out exactly how that would work in a policy paper published and made available to the House at the end of last year.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned foreign national offenders. I want to make it very clear that the flight in question, assuming he is talking about the same flight as the right hon. Member for Tottenham, is to Jamaica and that everyone on it who is being deported is a foreign national offender from Jamaica. All of them have been convicted of serious crimes, such as rape, murder, firearms offences and drug trafficking, and we are required by law, quite correctly, to deport anyone with such a serious conviction. This law applies universally to all foreign national offenders.
The hon. Gentleman should know that most liberal democracies around the world have similar laws in place. British offenders in foreign states are often deported back to the UK, including from Jamaica, which has in the past deported British nationals who have committed serious offences back to the UK.

David Evennett: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments. It is very important that we clear up these difficult cases. Can he confirm that those applying to settle under the Windrush scheme are receiving support in navigating the immigration system and that his Department continues to take a sympathetic and proactive approach when resolving applications?

Sajid Javid: I am happy to confirm that to my right hon. Friend, and he is right to raise it. From the moment the taskforce was set up, it was designed to make it as easy and simple as possible for people to use, and, as I said earlier, it has so far correctly documented almost 2,500 people.

Stuart McDonald: I wish also to raise concerns about removals and deportations to Jamaica being resumed. By all accounts, we are talking about people who came as children, about parents with British children and even about Commonwealth soldiers. To all intents and purposes, therefore, we are talking about people who are British even if they are not formally citizens. The Home Secretary has mentioned foreign national offenders. Will he publish the full list of offences people are being deported for?
Even the issue of foreign national offenders is not straightforward. Stephen Shaw said in his updated report on detention that
“a significant proportion of those deemed FNOs had grown up in the UK, some having been born here but the majority having arrived in very early childhood. These detainees often had strong UK accents, had been to UK schools, and all of their close family and friends were based in the UK.”
In other words, the Home Office is often really deporting UK offenders to other countries. Has the Home Office even begun to engage with the issue Mr Shaw himself has raised? I am asking the Home Secretary not to break the law but simply to review it and change it if necessary.
What work has been done to establish how people from other countries, including Commonwealth countries, have been impacted by Windrush-type disasters? Finally, what will the Home Office do to prevent probably hundreds of thousands of EU nationals from being subject to the same hostile environment measures when they miss the cut-off date for settled status applications?

Sajid Javid: I want to be clear again about the flight to Jamaica mentioned by hon. Members: not a single person being deported is British—a person cannot be deported and be British; they are all foreign national offenders, and under the 2007 Act, where someone is given a sentence of at least one year, the Home Secretary is required to make a deportation order, and where it is four years or more, the Home Secretary is required by law to order a deportation.
The wording of the hon. Gentleman’s question seemed to suggest that he knew who was on the flight and who was not. Let me say gently to him that the flight has not happened yet, but the deportation of anyone who is on it will be carried out absolutely according to the law. Ultimately, this is about public safety, because these are individuals who have committed serious offences. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that if we did not carry out the law, we would not only be breaking the law. Let us imagine what would happen if one of these people—someone, say, who had been convicted of murder—were allowed to stay in the UK and then committed that act again, against one of our constituents. What would the hon. Gentleman be saying to me then?

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. Let me gently point out that approximately 30 Members are seeking to contribute. I am keen to accommodate them, but it is imperative that we have short questions and short answers.

Victoria Prentis: I remember the Macpherson report, in which I was tangentially involved, and I would say that we have come a very long way since then. With that in mind, will the Secretary of State confirm that he will give a date soon for the compensation scheme?

Sajid Javid: I can confirm that we will be saying something about the compensation scheme very shortly.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary said that he would supply monthly updates to the Home Affairs Committee, but  we have not received an update since December, and that referred to the circumstances up to 31 October. Since then a very damning report on the Windrush situation has been published by the National Audit Office, raising a series of concerns about ongoing immigration casework and policies and the impact that they might have. The Home Office has not issued a proper response to that report either. When will we receive a substantial response to its recommendations that recognises the serious anxiety about the possibility that many of the failings relating to the Windrush situation are continuing today?

Sajid Javid: Let me first thank the right hon. Lady and her Committee for their scrutiny of this important issue. She knows that we are absolutely committed to providing her and the Committee with regular updates, and we will continue to do so. We always endeavour to include as much information as we can, and I hope she agrees that we have tried to make those updates as detailed as possible. She mentioned the NAO report, and I welcome that scrutiny as well. We looking into the report carefully in order to establish whether more needs to be done.

Steve Double: I thank the Home Secretary for the constructive, honest and compassionate way in which he and his Ministers have dealt with a very difficult situation. However, the treatment of members of the Windrush generation highlighted a number of deep-seated concerns about the manner in which the Home Office operated. Can the Home Secretary reassure the House that all the lessons that can be learned from the situation—not just specifically in relation to the Windrush generation, but in the wider context of the culture of the Home Office—will be learned? In particular, can he reassure us that there will be a greater emphasis on the fact that we are dealing with people, and that this is not just about policy?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am acutely aware that almost every decision that the Home Office makes has an impact on someone’s life, and we must ensure that every single one of those decisions is fair and made appropriately. That is the reason for the lessons learned review and a further, deeper review of some of the operations of the Home Office.

Lucy Powell: As the Home Secretary will know, I have encountered dozens of Windrush cases, and the taskforce has dealt with many of them well. However, one of my constituents, Owen Hainsley, will be on the plane that has been discussed. He came here, aged four, in 1977. He has left the country only twice since then, and on neither occasion did he go to Jamaica. He has no family there, but he has three children in this country, all of whom have British citizenship. He is well known on the music scene in Manchester, where he works with disadvantaged young people. He served two years in 2015. His British citizenship should have been regularised, but owing to an administrative error on the part of the Home Office, that did not happen. He is now being deported to a place to which he has not been for more than 40 years.
This is a grey area. Owen Hainsley is not a foreign national in any terms, and we are effectively making him stateless. I dealt with a very similar case—a Windrush  case—in which the Home Office did not deport someone but granted that person, who had a criminal record, indefinite leave to remain. So the Home Secretary does have that discretion. Can he use it in this case, because this is a scandal?

Sajid Javid: The deportations to which the hon. Lady refers took place under the UK Borders Act 2007, which I mentioned earlier and which was debated in the House as a Bill. It gives little if any discretion to the Home Secretary, but every single person who is being deported is a foreign national who has committed a serious offence.

Maria Caulfield: Is not a significant issue in all this the decision made in 2009, by the Labour Government of which the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) was a member, to destroy the landing cards and registry slips that constituted the only official documentation of some people’s arrival in Britain? Was not a mistake made then?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend has highlighted an important point, and it is worth emphasising. Members of  the Windrush generation were affected by decisions made by a number of Governments, including the last Government.

Edward Davey: Is not one of the lessons of the Windrush that when people have lived in our country for 20, 30 or 40 years, the idea that they should be deported if they do not have precisely the correct documentation is inhumane, and is not supported by the wider public? In the light of the Windrush scandal, will the Home Secretary review the unrealistic and draconian documentation requirements imposed on such people by the Home Office?

Sajid Javid: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to cases in which someone does not have—to use his own words—precisely the right documentation, of course that should be looked at very carefully. The whole purpose of the taskforce is to work with such individuals to make the process as easy as possible, and to ensure that issues such as incorrect documentation are sorted out.

Henry Smith: As we have already heard, it was a Labour Government who started destroying the landing cards of the Windrush generation. It was also a Labour Government who, under the Harold Wilson regime, forcibly exiled the Chagos islanders from the British Indian Ocean territory. As a result, members of the second and subsequent generations of the Chagos community do not have British citizenship. Will my right hon. Friend commit himself to looking into that as well?

Sajid Javid: I commend my hon. Friend for taking up this issue so energetically on behalf of the Chagos islanders, and I should be happy to discuss it with him further.

Kate Osamor: In December last year, the Home Office agreed to support members of the Windrush generation who had been mistreated by the Government with up to £5,000, but four of my constituents have found the arrangements for access to the fund overly stringent. Victims require immediate  and ongoing assistance. Does the Home Secretary not agree that we should be ensuring that the people who were affected by the Windrush situation can re-establish themselves in the community? Moreover, there has been no cohesion between central and local government in this regard. I ask the Home Secretary to look at the system and make sure that it works for the most vulnerable people.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady has made an important point about joined-up government and the need to ensure that that approach is taken when we respond to the most difficult cases in particular. I can assure her that the Home Office has been working carefully with a number of other Departments, including the Department for Work and Pensions, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and the Treasury.

Julian Knight: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if he did not authorise this latest flight carrying foreign national offenders, he would be failing in his duty of care, and he would be breaking the law?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is correct. It would be breaking the law, and it would mean that we were not putting the safety of our people first.

Meg Hillier: In compelling evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee, we heard how difficult it was for Windrush victims to obtain housing. The Home Secretary listed the people whom he was helping, but the fact is that local authorities will need to allocate that housing, and given the squeeze that they are experiencing and the current housing demand, that is just not happening. Will he think again about what central Government can do to ensure that these people are not in the general housing queue, and that local authorities do not have to provide them with much-needed homes?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady makes an important point. As I said at the start, some people may have lost housing or been affected in other ways in their housing, and they are being helped. We are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is speaking to local authorities. Where possible, we are trying to prioritise those cases.

Tom Pursglove: I am grateful for the speedy resolution of individual cases, but will my right hon. Friend say something about the role that those who have been affected are playing in helping to shape the compensation so that we get this right?

Sajid Javid: Yes. When we started work on the compensation scheme, it was right to appoint an independent person, and that is exactly what we did. Martin Forde, QC, travelled across the country and spoke to as many members of the Windrush generation who were affected as possible. He asked for an extension to speak to even more, and we granted that.

Lyn Brown: I cannot respond to constituents who contact me about deportations tomorrow. They and I want to know whether any of my constituents are on those flights. I have phoned the Immigration  Minister and been stonewalled again and again. The flights need to be suspended so that all individual circumstances can be properly examined. I am sure the Home Secretary agrees that this is an issue of trust and that, at the very least, the Department should engage in good faith with MPs on the matter.

Sajid Javid: I agree with the hon. Lady. I know that she has asked our Department a question, and we are looking into that. I hope she knows that, because I believe that we have communicated to her that we are looking into it. She is right that if any Member of Parliament has a question about any constituent, we will of course help in any way we can.

Richard Graham: All of us who have Jamaican and other Afro-Caribbean communities will have apologised deeply, as I did, for the shameful, inadvertent mistreatment by successive Governments of some of the Windrush generation. I thank the Home Office’s Windrush help desk for its work in quickly resolving the immigration status of my two affected constituents. One has a strong case for compensation. Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether my constituent can file his application before the end of this financial year?

Sajid Javid: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, which I welcome. He was right put things the way that he did. We will issue more details on compensation shortly, but we want to ensure, in the case of his constituent and others who are affected, that it is as generous as it can be.

Kate Green: In the light of the Sims case, which we heard about a few moments ago, and Sir Martin Forde’s comments, will the Home Secretary commit to further training for the Windrush taskforce in handling cases correctly, particularly complex cases?

Sajid Javid: I have asked for more information on the case of Miss Willow Sims, to which I referred earlier. When I heard her on the radio this morning, I was very concerned and determined to find out more. I do not want to prejudge that—I am waiting for further information—but I can make a commitment that if that information shows that more training is required or something needs to be done to ensure that such a case does not arise again, it will happen.

Kevin Foster: I know that the Home Secretary recognises that the Windrush generation have made a huge, positive contribution to the life of this country. It has therefore been strange to see Opposition Members defining them by the very small minority who have committed serious criminal offences. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that ensuring that compensation is available for those who have been unduly affected is important and should not be conflated with some of the issues we have heard about from Opposition Members?

Sajid Javid: I very much agree with my hon. Friend.

Ellie Reeves: My constituent Willow Sims came to the UK in the early 1980s and spent part of her childhood in the UK care system. She went on to have a career as a teaching assistant in local primary schools, where I first met her. In October, Willow came to see me. She had failed some immigration checks at work, so she lost her job and her recourse to public funds. My constituent is fully entitled to assistance under the Windrush taskforce scheme, yet due to mistakes at every level of government, and despite numerous representations to the Home Office by Willow, her solicitors and me, going as far back as October, her status has wrongly been brought into question. She now risks eviction from her home. Will the Home Secretary urgently rectify that chaos, apologise to Willow and meet me to discuss her case and what has gone so badly wrong?

Sajid Javid: I thank the hon. Lady for raising the case, not just today but in October. Had she not done so, Miss Willow Sims might not be getting the support she now gets. I am happy to apologise to Miss Sims for the Home Office’s mistakes in not recognising the importance of her case from the first moment she contacted the Home Office. I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss it further.

Anna Soubry: Anybody listening would be horrified at some of the cases, and they are not interested in which Government introduced schemes under what Act in what year. Unfairness and injustice must be rooted out wherever they lie, and I trust the Home Secretary to get on and do that. I have considerable sympathy with the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who raised the matter, and I agree with him that the Windrush scandal is a result of the dog-whistle politics that has plagued immigration. Does my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary agree that from now on, we will have an informed, grown-up, honest debate about immigration, particularly the benefits that it has conveyed to our country for centuries?

Sajid Javid: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend about the tone of the debate on immigration—on anyone who has settled in our great country, regardless of where they came from, why they came here and how long they have been here—and with her point about our taking more opportunity, across the House, to highlight the benefits of immigration, whether from the Commonwealth or elsewhere, and how those people have helped to make this country great.

Rushanara Ali: The Macpherson definition of institutional racism is:
“The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racial stereotyping.”
There is no doubt that that—and much worse—has been the experience of the Windrush generation. Is not it time that the Home Secretary learned lessons and took action to prevent further institutional racism from continuing against the Windrush generation and others?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady chose not to listen to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) made about the tone of the debate. If  she is trying to suggest that there is institutional racism, she must accept that that was what existed under the previous Labour Government.

Janet Daby: According to Movement for Justice, 18 people on the chartered flight are connected to the Windrush generation. One is a grandfather who served in the British Army; another one’s grandfather died as a serving British soldier, and two others are former British servicemen. I therefore do not understand how the Home Secretary can say that they are foreign nationals. I find his tone most disturbing. I am half Jamaican and very proud of it, but I feel that what he says is unhelpful to the Jamaican community in this country. Like him, I am second generation, but I feel that he sounds like a reincarnation of Enoch Powell.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady chooses to lower the tone of the debate when she could try to help her constituents. The whole House is proud of immigrants who have come to this country, whether they are first or second generation, and whether they came from Jamaica, Pakistan or anywhere else. The hon. Lady does herself no service by lowering the tone of the debate.

Marsha de Cordova: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on securing the urgent question. Will the Home Secretary confirm that 13 of the detainees who are scheduled to be deported this week came to this country as children? We know that there is a grey area in the definition of “British citizen” and “foreign national”; does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is time to review it?

Sajid Javid: The law is very clear on this. It focuses on the crime and on the nationality of the individual, as in whether they are British or not. When someone has committed a serious crime such as rape or murder, the law requires that, as a foreign national offender, they should be deported.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I should just point out that the two debates to follow are very heavily subscribed. I am happy to try to accommodate remaining would-be questioners on the understanding that each of them will put a single-sentence question. We will be led in this important matter by Ruth Cadbury.

Ruth Cadbury: The Home Office said last year that Windrush applications would be turned round within two weeks, but my constituent, who has retired after many years working as an NHS midwife, is still waiting, six months later. When will the Secretary of State admit that the overstretched immigration system cannot cope with Windrush generation cases and apologise to those who are living in limbo?

Sajid Javid: Most applications are being turned round within a matter of weeks, but if the hon. Lady sends me the details of that case, I will take a closer look at it.

Sarah Jones: The Home Secretary says, “The law is very clear on this,” but when I held a Windrush surgery, all the people who came to it had been told by the Home Office that they were not  British citizens. They have all now been told that they are British citizens, so I suggest that the law is not very clear and that there are grey areas. I have also been told that someone from my constituency is on that flight. Will he commit to looking into whether there is someone from my constituency on that flight and whether they should be there?

Sajid Javid: If the hon. Lady sends me more information about the individual she has in mind, I will of course look into that case.

Catherine West: Will the Secretary of State please estimate how many people have had their access to healthcare affected? Also, if an individual has passed away due to being a Windrush victim, is the scheme open to a claim by their family members?

Sajid Javid: We plan to ensure that the scheme is open to family members in such cases.

Vicky Foxcroft: My constituent has been waiting since 26 December for a decision on his Windrush application. The process has taken nine times the length of the two-week turnaround period that was promised. That is unacceptable when people cannot work, cannot claim benefits and are struggling to live, even though they are from this country.

Sajid Javid: If the hon. Lady sends me more details, I will take a closer look at that case.

Andrew Slaughter: Before the Windrush scandal became the Windrush scandal, many cases took years to resolve and victims disappeared because they feared deportation. To avoid future injustice, will the Secretary of State guarantee that all Windrush-style cases, including those involving people not from the Caribbean or Commonwealth countries, will be dealt with in a similar fashion?

Sajid Javid: The work of the taskforce is open not just to members of the Commonwealth who have come to Britain, but to anyone who came to the UK before 1988.

Gill Furniss: Last year, I helped a family in my constituency to get the passports to which they were entitled but were scandalously being denied. The family now find themselves in dire financial straits due to a family member’s terminal illness. When will they be paid the compensation that they are due, and when will they get a decision from the exceptional circumstances fund?

Sajid Javid: The exceptional payments scheme has started to pay out, and decisions are being made. We will be announcing more details of the compensation scheme shortly.

Paul Blomfield: The Home Secretary will have heard Members expressing their very real concern about the status of those who are due to be deported this week. Will he therefore personally review the documentation and circumstances of each of those individuals before any deportation takes place?

Sajid Javid: Every one of those cases already has to be reviewed by a Minister.

Helen Hayes: I have written extensively to the Immigration Minister and to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about my constituent, a Windrush citizen, who has been denied attendance allowance because she was not in the country during the assessment period. The only reason why she was not in the country was the illegal action of the British Government. Will the Home Secretary now accept that a lack of joined-up working between Government Departments on the Windrush scheme is compounding, increasing and prolonging the injustice that the Windrush citizens are suffering?

Sajid Javid: We work closely with the Department for Work and Pensions, and the hon. Lady gives an example of why that is absolutely necessary. If she wants to give me further details of her constituent’s case, we will look into it as a matter of priority.

Wes Streeting: Given what the Home Secretary has heard, does he really believe  that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) was inappropriate in his tone? Does he really think that someone is going to take him to court for exercising appropriate discretion, or does he in fact believe that it is right to deport first and ask questions later?

Sajid Javid: When it comes to the deportation of foreign national offenders, a lot of questions are asked first, including on the right of appeal, and we carry out deportations only if they are absolutely correct under the law. Ultimately, it is worth remembering that they are there to protect members of the public.

John Bercow: In conclusion to this important series of exchanges, I want to make two points. First, as colleagues will recall, I said nothing whatsoever about the tone of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). I referred simply to a minor breach of normal procedure in terms of the debate going through the third person,  but I made no other comment about tone. This is an extraordinarily important matter affecting people’s lives. People can comment on each other’s tone, but for my part, from the Chair, I do not underestimate the intensity of feeling and the sense of real anger about this subject, which was extremely eloquently voiced by the right hon. Gentleman and many other Members.
Secondly, I have a sense, on the basis of some experience of sitting in the Chair over the past nine and a half years, that this matter will be raised again and again. It affects very vulnerable people, as Members on both sides of the House with any sensitivity will acknowledge, and it will not go away. Quite a lot of activity—I am not saying it is nefarious activity; I am not criticising the Home Secretary—is taking place under the radar, but the purpose of this House is to give voice to grievances and to seek redress for them, and there is nothing to stop Members raising this matter over and over again in the Chamber, day after day, if that is their inclination.

Anna Soubry: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I should like to thank you for your comments, with which I am sure we all agree.
On the matter of tone, I know that the Home Secretary is robust, but he gets a great deal of abuse, even though he might not like to talk about it. I do think that the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) likening the Home Secretary, or indeed any Member of this place, to Enoch Powell is profoundly offensive. Would you agree, Mr Speaker?

John Bercow: I note what the right hon. Lady has said, and I sense that the Home Secretary might well feel greatly offended by that comment. He might feel that it does violence to his values, his record or his intentions, but nothing disorderly has happened, and I therefore do not feel that I can intercede. I would just say that we should all weigh our words carefully and remember the precept of “Erskine May” that moderation and—in so far as it can be deployed in matters as serious is this— good humour in the conduct of parliamentary debate tend to conduce to better outcomes. I will leave it there for today.

LEAVING THE EU: NO DEAL

Application for emergency debate (Standing Order No. 24)

John Bercow: I now call Tom Brake to make an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. The right hon. Gentleman has up to three minutes in which to make his application.

Tom Brake: Thank you for granting this request, Mr Speaker. I rise to propose that the House should debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration: the consequences of leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement or future political agreement. I have been pleased to receive support for this application from Plaid Cymru, which is well represented here today, as well as from the Scottish National party, the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), my Liberal Democrat colleagues and others who are here in the Chamber today.
On Thursday, the Prime Minister will board the latest shuttle to Brussels to attempt to recast the backstop she had painstakingly negotiated over a two-year period. This is the backstop that she described as a necessary guarantee for the people of Northern Ireland, adding that there is no deal available that does not have a backstop in it. Frankly, I doubt very much whether she expects to return from Brussels with anything more than her duty-free. The EU has made it clear for months that the backstop that the Prime Minister secured for the UK is the backstop that is on offer. This is just another round of kicking the can down the road, bringing us two weeks closer to crashing out of the EU. This reckless game is costing jobs, business investment—Nissan being the latest example—and damaging our international standing and credibility.
Airbus said that if the UK left the EU without a deal it would
“lead to severe disruption and interruption of UK production.”
Airbus employs 14,000 people in the UK. Ford warned that a no-deal Brexit would cost the company an estimated £612 million this year. Sainsbury’s, Asda, McDonald’s and others have warned that stockpiling fresh food is impossible and that the UK is reliant on the EU for produce, particularly in March. Standard & Poor’s warned that UK unemployment would rise from 4% to 7% by 2020 in the event of no deal. In the face of mounting evidence of the damage that no deal would cause, leading Brexiters still maintain the pretence that it would do no harm, with some saying that
“We want to be out and we know it will work just fine”,
and that a free trade deal could be “done in an afternoon.”
Yesterday, we debated sport in the UK, and we will debate beer and pubs later this week. I do not want to minimise the importance of those debates, but with an uncontrolled departure from the EU just 50 days away, I ask you, Mr Speaker, to allow an urgent debate in this  House to consider the Government’s unwillingness to rule out crashing out of the EU without a deal, with all the associated harmful consequences.

John Bercow: Let me respond to the right hon. Gentleman, to whom I granted the opportunity of a three-minute application. I have listened carefully to his application. At this time, I am not persuaded that the matter is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24, but I have a little more to say. The right hon. Gentleman is a former deputy Leader of the House, and he will doubtless know that the Standing Order does not allow me to give the reasons for my decision or, at any rate, does not exhort or compel me to do so. However, the House will be aware that the Standing Order states:
“In determining whether a matter is urgent the Speaker shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House in time by other means.”
There have of course previously been SO24 debates appertaining to Brexit, and it is perfectly possible and readily imaginable that there may be others in due course.
I do not skit at the right hon. Gentleman. I am conscious of the pressing timescale. I am also conscious that we have been promised a statement on, if memory serves me, Wednesday of next week and a debate and likely votes on Thursday of next week. I genuinely believe that there is something to be said for observing processes taking place outside of this Chamber and coming to a view about what further consideration of this subject will be required.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the growing proximity to the intended departure day of 29 March, and I have that in my mind. He may rest assured that this matter will not be allowed simply to rest or to linger, nor is it the case that only the Government can choose when it is debated. I think I have demonstrated several times that I do not accept for one moment that only the Government can determine when the matter is debated or, indeed, the terms and amendability or otherwise of any motion. The Chair is rightly the custodian of some of those powers, which I exercise for the benefit of the House. I say no for now, but I have the matter under review, and I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman and a great many other Members on both sides of the House will be doing the same.

BILL PRESENTED

Kitchens in Rented Accommodation (Benefit Claimants) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Frank Field presented a Bill to require landlords to meet standards for the hygienic storage and preparation of food and the provision of cooking appliances and equipment in accommodation provided for tenants in receipt of Universal Credit or Housing Benefit; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 March, and to be printed (Bill 329).

CRIME (IMPACT STATEMENTS)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Melanie Onn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for statements made by persons adversely affected by a crime to be used in sentencing proceedings in court; and for connected purposes.
This Bill follows on from the great work by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) with the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, which allows for judges to charge those who assault our emergency workers under a new offence that doubles the maximum tariff that can be handed out in court. The Act was a crucial step towards giving prosecutors the ability to ask for a sentence that is proportionate to the injuries caused by attacks to frontline workers in our emergency services. However, my Bill is about ensuring that judges are able to consider the full impact of the cost to communities, as well as to individuals, of losing staff time, which has an impact on public service delivery, as a result of attacks on police officers, firefighters, ambulance workers and many others who put themselves on the frontline to help the public.
The inspiration for this Bill comes from an incident that occurred in my constituency last May, when Humberside police officers attended after early morning reports of a man with a knife wound and evidence of drug use. When they moved to arrest 27-year-old Josse Jackson, he spat at them while telling them that he had hepatitis C and AIDS. Repeatedly threatening to bite them, he told one officer that he would
“find out where you live and you will be dead before the end of the week.”
When he was sentenced in October, he received just 13 weeks and was released almost immediately. That left officers with a sense that, no matter the impact of abuse against them, and the demotivation and reluctance to continue on the frontline that it could encourage, it was not relevant and such abuse was therefore acceptable as it had little consequence.
Any of us would find being on the end of such an attack both emotionally and physically taxing but, for those on the frontline, facing conflict on a daily basis, the cumulative strain is immense, and that strain does not lie with one individual, but permeates beyond to teams, departments and organisations. Many of us would be able to take measures to ensure that we do not end up in such a situation again, but that ability is not afforded to frontline workers, who will be expected to run towards situations that could bring them into contact with dangerous individuals and to deal with them professionally and confidently.
Emergency workers often have to take time off to recover following the worst attacks, taking up important staff time and stretching budgets, or be kept off the frontline, reducing levels of other available staff. From April to December 2017 in the west midlands, the local police force lost 356 days—nearly a whole year—while officers recovered from their injuries. The sick pay alone could have provided for another full-time officer or call   handlers or PCSOs, but it still does not quantify the additional stress burden on the remaining colleagues who are required to pick up the workload. Nor does it consider the work not done as a result of absence.
Our communities are missing out on an important community presence and resources as a direct result of the actions of criminals towards public sector workers. The professional impact of crimes can be severe and wide reaching, yet there is no national standard for how such impacts are considered in sentencing. We need to change that and to make our justice system more responsive to the effects that crime has on our public servants and our public services.
My Bill would introduce a professional impact statement, to be considered as part of the sentencing process, ensuring that the impact of a crime on public sector workers’ ability to do their jobs is considered when sentences are being handed down. A number of police forces produce professional impact statements when officers and staff are injured in the line of duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) mentioned on Report during the passage of the 2018 Act that the local Crown prosecutor in Bedfordshire advises officers and staff to give personal impact statements to the court so that they are given the same attention as those of victims. In the west midlands, police chief Dave Thompson outlines the impact on his force and the wider community during sentencing in his area.
There should be a national standard for how such statements are produced and considered. By making professional impact statements part of national sentencing guidance, my Bill would enhance the support to public service workers who have come to harm through their work and send an even stronger message that assault and abuse should never be part of the job for any worker in the UK. My Bill would take the 2018 Act further by acting on calls from the likes of Humberside police for the broader consequence—the impact on the force’s ability to continue its core function—to be considered at sentencing. Professional impact statements would help to ensure that those who attack frontline workers have to pay their full debt to society, by taking into account the impact on our communities of the lost presence of emergency workers on the street, or the criminal damage to equipment, such as ambulances, that means members of the public have to wait longer to get the care they need.
If the justice system is partly intended to reflect the payment required to society, we must recognise the full impact, the full cost, in all its guises to bring about a sense of fairness in justice. We must make it clear that those who rush into dangerous situations to keep us all safe will be given the strongest possible protection should they come to any harm, and my Bill would help to do just that.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Melanie Onn, Chris Bryant, Sir Graham Brady, Gareth Snell, Ruth Smeeth, Ms Harriet Harman, Martin Vickers and Nic Dakin present the Bill.
Melanie Onn accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March, and to be printed (Bill 330).

POLICE GRANT REPORT

Sajid Javid: I beg to move,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) for 2019/20 (HC 1896), which was laid before this House on 24 January, be approved.
I start by paying tribute to the police. Coming from a policing family, I have seen their bravery, their dedication and their professionalism. They take extraordinary risks to protect the public day in, day out. I am in awe of what they do to protect us all. They undoubtedly deserve this House’s gratitude and support.
As Home Secretary, my mission is to keep the public safe and, of course, the police have an absolutely crucial part to play. When I took this role, I vowed to stand with them, to support them and to listen to them. I have met police leaders, and I have heard what they have to say. My right hon. Friend, the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service, has done the same.
We know the demands the police are facing, how those demands are increasing and how crime is changing and becoming more complex. Previously hidden crimes such as child sexual exploitation are increasingly being reported, which we encourage and welcome. More criminals are moving online, which is bringing fresh challenges. We are battling the worst spike in violent crime for a decade, and we are giving the police more of the powers they need, such as those in the Offensive Weapons Bill. I vow to ensure they have the tools and resources they need to help keep our communities safe.

Maria Eagle: I welcome what the Home Secretary says about supporting the police. Can he therefore explain why, since 2010, the Government have cut Merseyside police’s funding by over £90 million?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady is clearly arguing for more police funding, so I hope she welcomes the settlement, including the extra £18 million for her own force.

Chris Bryant: I am sorry that I do not have much voice.
One of the new tools we have given to the police is the ability to take people to court for assaults on emergency workers, including police officers, but it would be a terrible problem if, after bringing in this new law, the police have no time or facilities to implement it. Will the Home Secretary make sure the police are taking this on board seriously and have the time and financial resources to ensure that we protect all our emergency workers? Some of the violent crime he talks about affects ambulance workers, mental health nurses and nurses in accident and emergency.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I thank him for his work in introducing the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, which the Government were pleased to support. The Act will make an important difference to the police. He is right to raise the importance of making sure there are proper resources behind the Act to help it to make that difference, and I therefore hope that he will welcome the settlement today.

Stephen Lloyd: The Home Secretary has already alluded to how policing has changed considerably over the past x number of years. Does he support the national campaign, which has over a quarter of a million supporters, demanding a police royal commission? We have not had one for almost 60 years and policing has changed considerably during the intervening period. We hear so many different stories about resource, or the lack of it, and about what modern policing is. Does he agree that the most effective way to deal with this so that the public, and even the Government, understand exactly what policing is today would be to have a police royal commission?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Because of the change in demand caused by the rising demand of certain crimes and by the complexity of certain crimes, it is important to make sure that the Home Office, the National Police Chiefs Council and others are continually looking at this. I am not convinced that a royal commission is the answer, because it may lead to decisions being delayed or not being made, but he makes an important general point about making sure we are on top of what is needed by considering the changes and the complexity of crime.

Desmond Swayne: My right hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the challenges facing the police. Is it fair that, in facing those challenges, so much of their time is taken up by dealing with mental health emergencies that, frankly, are properly the concern of another Department of State?

Sajid Javid: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. It is not fair if police time is taken up by issues that should be dealt with by, in this case, health professionals. This has been recognised by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who has committed to using some of the extra resources the Government are now putting into the NHS to help to relieve the police and to work with them more closely.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Sajid Javid: I will give way one more time, and then I want to make some progress.

Jim Cunningham: May I make the Home Secretary aware that in parts of Coventry, both in affluent parts and in less well-off parts, there has been an increase in burglaries and knife crime? The police used a dispersal order in the centre of Coventry on Saturday after a young man was badly stabbed. Will the Home Secretary increase police numbers in the west midlands, particularly in Coventry, where I am told by the police that they operate at only 75%?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman raises the very important issue of knife crime, and I am sorry to hear about that incident in Coventry. This is about powers, which is why the Offensive Weapons Bill is bringing new powers for the police, but it is also about resources. I therefore hope that he will support the Government’s settlement today because of the extra £34 million it will provide to his local force.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Sajid Javid: I must make some more progress. I will give way later.
The settlement provides the biggest increase in police funding since 2010, up to an extra £970 million in 2019-20. This will boost capacity and help forces recruit the extra officers they have told me they need. This is a significant increase. Last year, the House approved an additional £460 million for policing, including from the council tax increase. The latest workforce figures show that, by September 2018, this was starting to pay off, with officer numbers up by 466 in that year. At the time, the Policing Minister, who has shown steadfast support for the police, indicated that our intention was to provide a similar settlement this year, subject to improved efficiency, productivity and financial transparency. The police have met those conditions.
The police are on track to deliver £120 million in commercial savings by 2020-21. They are adopting more digital technology, including mobile working. All police and crime commissioners have published strategies demonstrating how they plan to use their financial reserves. They have kept their side of the bargain, and I am keeping mine. I am going further than we promised last year to provide the support they really need.

Tom Pursglove: People in Corby and east Northamptonshire want to see more police out on the beat, catching criminals and deterring crime. Will my right hon. Friend be impressing on police and crime commissioners that a good chunk of the additional funding being made available should be directed towards that priority?

Sajid Javid: Yes, my hon. Friend’s point is an important one. He knows that with PCCs there is a lot of independence in setting priorities, but we work carefully and closely with police forces, including his, which will benefit by an additional £9 million through this settlement, to make sure that those strategies are the right ones.

Clive Betts: I thank the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service for the supportive comments he has made about the improvements that South Yorkshire police force has made in the past year. However, it has the legacy issues of Hillsborough and child sexual exploitation in Rotherham to deal with, and each year it has to come to the Government with an application for a special grant. It has been given that, but the grant has to be top-sliced, putting an additional burden on police funding. Will the Home Secretary agree to a meeting with the South Yorkshire PCC and local MPs, involving either him or the Policing Minister, to see whether we can find a better way to deal with these issues in the future?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman highlights that there are sometimes special situations, and special grants are needed to deal with exactly what he has mentioned. I am happy to make sure that Home Office Ministers meet him to discuss that further, as it is a very important point.

John Redwood: I thank the Home Secretary for understanding the need and coming up with a much better settlement for us. Does he agree that Thames Valley, which contains fast-growing areas of  the country such as mine, where a lot of extra housing is going in, needs some extra money just to keep pace with the extra number of people who require a police service?

Sajid Javid: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend on that, and I thank him for his support. He highlights the need for this extra funding, and I know that he will welcome the support that will be provided—I believe it is almost £34 million—to his force.

Paula Sherriff: Does the Home Secretary agree that as a result of having 21,000 fewer police officers on our streets, our intelligence-gathering capabilities have been severely restricted? Does he also agree that the proposal he is putting forward today is just nowhere near enough?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady will know that, when it comes to evidence gathering, a lot is needed by the police; it is not just all about resources, although they play an important role. She will know that today’s settlement gives a significant increase for her local force. I know that she supports that, so I look forward to seeing her in the Lobby.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Sajid Javid: I am going to make progress, but I will give way later on.
I want to be clear with the House on how this increase of almost £1 billion breaks down. Government grants to PCCs will rise by £161 million, which will protect their grant funding in real terms. This package includes an additional £12 million for the Met, to recognise the extra costs and challenges of policing in London. We will allocate more than £153 million to help forces manage increases in pensions costs. We are investing £90 million in much-needed capabilities to combat serious and organised crime at national, regional and local levels. Funding for counter-terrorism policing will increase by £59 million next year, to £816 million—that is £160 million more than we planned at the last spending review. We will support forces through a continued investment of £175 million in the police transformation fund and £495 million to replace and upgrade critical police technology infrastructure.
We are giving PCCs the flexibility they need to use their precept to raise more public money where it is needed most. We have listened to requests from PCCs and empowered them to increase the amount they can raise through council tax precepts. This will allow them to ask for an additional £2 a month per household without the need for a local referendum. The extra cost to a typical household will be up to £24 a year. We know that money is tight, and we did not take this decision lightly. The decision to use this flexibility is up to locally elected PCCs—they must make the case to their electorates. Providing this additional flexibility will allow them to raise up to £509 million in total. Many PCCs have welcomed the funding settlement we set out in December.
Almost all PCCs in England have chosen to use this new council tax flexibility in full, and local people have shown their support. For example, 6,500 people responded to the PCC’s precept consultation in Hampshire, with 76% indicating that they support the proposed increase. In Suffolk, nearly 70% voted for the full £24 rise. PCCs  have been explaining what they want to use this extra funding for, and I am delighted that many of them plan to use it to strengthen frontline policing. They are consulting on plans to use the money to recruit more than 2,800 extra officers, potentially leading to the biggest annual increase in numbers for more than 10 years. If all PCCs use their full precept next year, overall police funding will have increased by £2 billion in just four years.

Alex Cunningham: Police recorded crime figures for the last full year showed that police areas with the highest number of crimes per 1,000 people have received the smallest increase in funding. Cleveland has the highest crime figures yet it has the lowest increase. The Minister has ignored the letter from Cleveland MPs about our budget, so will he explain this bizarre outcome or, better still, recognise that he has got the Cleveland settlement very wrong?

Sajid Javid: First, the hon. Gentleman will be all too aware, given his closeness to this, that there are some other issues in Cleveland as well. He talks about resources and funding, and there is a £7 million increase for Cleveland in this settlement. If he means what he says, I am sure he will be joining me in the Lobby tonight.

Jack Dromey: Let me ask the Home Secretary the question that Ministers seem reluctant to answer. Police numbers have fallen by 21,000, and by 2,000 in the west midlands, and crime is soaring. Are the Government seriously suggesting that there is no link between falling police numbers and increasing crime?

Sajid Javid: Where the hon. Gentleman is right is that there have been increases in certain types of crime. For example, as I said earlier, there have been increases in serious violence, cyber-crime, and the reporting of sexual offences, especially historical sexual offences. We welcome such reporting, including of historical offences; we want to see more of those being reported so that we can investigate more. It does require more resource and, in some cases, with some forces, it also requires changes in practices. He has raised his concern for the West Midlands police force and making sure there are enough resources. I believe that there is about £34 million more for his force, which represents a significant increase. It is fair to say that it is more than would have been expected by the force this time last year. If he supports his local force and wants to see those resources going to it, I am sure he will vote with the Government later this afternoon.

Richard Burden: May I press the Home Secretary a little more on these figures? I am talking about the support that local forces get from his Department, not what is being passed on to local council tax payers. The West Midlands PCC has estimated that simply to stand still West Midlands police force needs an increase in excess of £24 million. As the additional amount the Home Secretary is putting forward is just over £15 million, how is that anything other than a real-terms cut?

Sajid Javid: Again, the hon. Gentleman, like so many other Opposition Members, has raised the issue of resources. That is why I am sure he will welcome the  biggest cash increase collectively since 2010. He talks about the West Midlands force, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) did. That force is receiving an increase of more than £34 million. I gently point out that the force has £85 million in reserves, which is one of the highest levels of reserves in the country, so the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) should have a chat with his PCC to ask whether he can do a better job.

Wes Streeting: It may have slipped the Home Secretary’s mind, but he did not actually answer a very important question. Is he seriously suggesting that there is no link between falling police numbers and rising crime?

Sajid Javid: I have been clear that in recent years we have seen an increase in certain types of crime, but it would be lazy of any of us to attribute that to just one factor. I recognise that resources are an important issue, which is why we are giving this record settlement today.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Sajid Javid: I will make some progress, then take some further interventions in a moment.
Supporting policing is not just about money; the police chiefs I have met have also consistently raised concerns about, for example, their officers’ welfare. That is why there will be more support for frontline officers, with a new national wellbeing centre of excellence. We will also help forces to identify mental health issues earlier with psychological screening, so that officers can access support and, where appropriate, stay in work.
The impact of next year’s funding increase will be immense. Forces will be able to continue to recruit and fill crucial capability gaps. They will be able to prevent more crime and deliver better outcomes for victims. We will work with PCCs and chief constables to make the most of this funding settlement. We are asking them to use the extra investment to address four priority areas next year. First, they should continue efficiency savings. Forces must see beyond their own boundaries and continue to join up to get better procurement deals and drive more benefits from shared services. Secondly, they should resolve the shortfall in detective numbers identified by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services. We will work with the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to support forces in meeting this challenge. Thirdly, they should continue improvements in productivity, with a view to delivering £50 million of productivity savings in 2019-20. That will include the smarter use of data and improved digital capabilities, including mobile working, where appropriate. Finally, I expect all forces to respond effectively to the threat from serious and organised crime. This is an area that cannot and must not be ignored by anyone. I have delivered on my own promise to the police, and I now expect them to respond to the challenge that we have set them, as they did so well last year.

Jim McMahon: Does the Home Secretary accept that the real lived experience of many people in Greater Manchester is that many crimes do not even get investigated, and are simply recorded? In many communities, police stations  have been closed altogether, and in my own town we do not have a single custody cell left open for a population of quarter of a million people.

Sajid Javid: Like so many Members, the hon. Gentleman makes an issue of the need for more resources. I have met his local chief constable and other police officers from his force, and they are doing some excellent work in difficult circumstances, with some particular challenges in Manchester. I hope the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming today’s settlement, which contains an additional £35 million for his local force. If he wishes to discuss the needs of his local force further, I would be happy to meet him, as would the Policing Minister, to listen more.

Bob Seely: I welcome the biggest rise in police funds since 2010, which is excellent news for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. However, will my right hon. Friend concede that, as a force, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight has been historically underfunded relative to its size? When he considers future funding formulae, will he therefore take into account the historical underfunding of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight and seek to rectify it?

Sajid Javid: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that commitment. He makes an important point and I am glad he has raised it. We have been clear in the Home Office that when the upcoming spending review, on which I will say more in a moment, comes around, it is important that we also look at the national funding formula for policing.

Angela Eagle: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that the increases he is talking about will lead to better crime-fighting results, but he is denying that the cuts that led to 1,000 fewer officers in the Merseyside police force have affected the rise in crime. Will he now answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey)? There is actually a link between police funding and crime levels, and he should come clean about it. The right hon. Gentleman cannot claim that if money is going up, crime rates will get better, but deny there is a link the other way around.

Sajid Javid: I thought the hon. Lady was taking over my speech for me, but she raises an important point. On fighting crime, as I mentioned earlier, there has been a particular rise in certain types of crime, especially those that are more complex and so by definition require more resource. That is what the settlement recognises—that where crime, especially more complex crime, has risen, more resources should be provided. This is a record settlement—the largest since 2010—and contains £18 million for the hon. Lady’s local force.

Edward Davey: Will the Home Secretary confirm that the question before the House on the police report is about national support for police forces and has nothing to do with council tax rises, which may or may not happen? Furthermore, will he admit to the House that if one looks at where the rise in knife crime has been greatest, one will see that it is in those areas that are more dependent on national support?

Sajid Javid: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that this debate is just about national support. The report also includes the Government’s decision, subject to the will of the House, to allow an increase in the precept of up to £24 without a referendum, as I mentioned earlier. That is part of the total funding package, to which I have referred, of £970 million.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Sajid Javid: I need to make some progress.
The police will continue to face pressures, and my commitment to them is ongoing. The Policing Minister has also shown unwavering support and will of course continue to do so. This is the last settlement before the next spending review, which will set out the resources available to the police in future years. I will continue to make police resourcing a priority in that spending review. Once again, though, it is of course a two-way street. The police must continue to improve efficiency, productivity and effectiveness, to provide value for money, and to give the public the top-class service they deserve. I will back them in the spending review, but any increased support must come with an important condition: the police must commit to a long-term action plan to further improve effectiveness and productivity. I am determined to give them the investment that they need, but it must be used efficiently. We have the best police force in the world, but they must also be as effective as they can be.

Marcus Jones: In Warwickshire, we have one of the smallest police forces in the country, but this year’s and last year’s settlements are enabling the police and crime commissioner to put in a further 150 police officers and staff. Will my right hon. Friend look carefully at the funding for county areas, which are under great pressure from a lot of criminality and problems coming from the city areas, which have traditionally been funded a lot more significantly than the county areas?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and it draws me back to my earlier comment in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) about the national funding formula for policing. We are committed to looking at that when we consider longer term funding through the spending review process.
The Government are determined to respond to the threat from terrorism, organised crime and serious violence, and the police are of course a vital partner in that work. We must give them the resources they need to get the job done, which is why we are proposing the largest increase in police funding since 2010.

Edward Davey: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Home Secretary to tell me, in answer to my question, that the £24 that the Government are allowing local police authorities to raise is in the report, when I have checked the report and cannot find any mention of the £24 to which he drew the House’s attention? That report is the subject of tonight’s vote.

Lindsay Hoyle: In fairness, I think you have clarified the record in the way you have read the report.

Sajid Javid: Today, every Member of this House can show their support for this increase, for public safety and for our police. I commend the motion to the House.

Diane Abbott: There can be no question but that the biggest indictment of this Government’s record on law and order is their long-standing failure to fund the police properly. Sadly, that is as true of this year’s funding allocation as it is of any other year’s. I have to say to the Home Secretary, in the kindest possible manner, that he is brazen in expecting Opposition Members to follow him into the Lobby on this funding settlement. We would be less than responsible if we voted for one that is patently inadequate. It is not just Members on the Opposition Benches who are saying that but ordinary police officers. The chair of the Police Federation, John Apter, said:
“This appears to be a quick fix. A sticking plaster solution that injects extra money in the short-term, but one which sees the burden falling unfairly on local council tax payers.”
Senior police officers think that this settlement is inadequate. The president of the Police Superintendents Association, Gavin Thomas, has said:
“Whilst I welcome this injection of funding, it is still far short of what the service requires to effectively meet the challenges of 21st century policing.”

Ruth George: My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. In Derbyshire, my own area, the Government’s increase in the grant does not even meet the increase in the police pension costs. There is a shortfall of £400,000, which has to be met by council tax payers before they even start to contribute towards the extra policing that we so desperately need, and which officers on the frontline need to help them combat the stress that the Home Secretary mentioned.

Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend makes an important point on behalf of her constituents in Derbyshire.
The West Midlands police and crime commissioner says publicly what many PCCs say privately—that this Government funding does not come anywhere near to covering what the force requires just to stand still.

Steve McCabe: On that point, does my right hon. Friend think that it is the outspoken nature of the police and crime commissioner’s comments that has led to the Home Secretary trying to abolish his job?

Diane Abbott: I would never accuse the Home Secretary of being so petty. This is what the West Midlands police and crime commissioner said:
“This government funding does not come anywhere near to covering what the force requires…£25.6m is needed to cover extra pension costs, government-set pay increases and rising fuel costs this year.”

Conor McGinn: I strongly endorse what my right hon. Friend is saying. People in my constituency will have listened with incredulity to the Home Secretary talking about extra resources when, yesterday, they were told that Newton-le-Willows police station will close, except for a few hours on a Friday, precisely because there is a lack of resources. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, on this Government’s  watch, there are fewer police officers and they are further away from the communities that they seek to serve?

Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend makes a very important point.
Having spoken about what policing professionals think about this settlement, I have to stress that it does not take policing professionals to make the public aware of the consequences of the failure to provide resources and therefore police capacity. All over the country, the public are aware of issues such as the delays in responding to 999 calls. The inspectorate of constabulary, in its annual review, found instances of the police taking days to respond to calls that should have been acted on within an hour. At a recent meeting in Wolverhampton to discuss public safety, I found many people saying that they had reported instances of open drug dealing, for instance, but that no police officers had turned up—nothing was done. This all points to a lack of capacity.

Anna McMorrin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must also find a way to adequately fund capital cities outside London? Cardiff hosts 400 major events a year and is the seat of the Welsh Government, yet it does not receive any extra funding as a capital city, which means that resources come from elsewhere. Could that perhaps be reflected in any settlement?

Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Later in my remarks, I will come to how the Home Office manages resources in general.
Ministers seem to remain in denial about the consequences of their actions. At least the Home Secretary was able to admit on the BBC that the Government have cut 21,000 police officers, but, as my hon. Friends have elicited in questioning, Ministers continue to insist, almost alone in the country, that lower police numbers have had no negative effect in the fight against crime. That is an absurd idea.

Gerald Jones: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, apart from Leicestershire, where there has been a very small increase in the number of police community support officers, the only part of the country where there has been such a rise is Wales, where there has been an increase of 217 PCSOs since 2010? Will she join me in praising the Welsh Labour Government for funding 500 PCSOs across Wales and standing up for the people of Wales when this Government are failing them?

Diane Abbott: I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Government of Wales, particularly on their emphasis on community policing.
The real record of the UK Government is this: police officer numbers have not been this low in decades, chief constables up and down the country are warning about the consequences of the cuts in their areas and in their forces, and police-recorded violent crime is now at its highest level on record. Earlier, the Home Secretary tried to ascribe that increase to better recording of crime, but he is not supported on that by the Office for National Statistics, which says:
“Over the last year we’ve seen rises in vehicle offences, robbery, and some lower-volume but higher-harm types of violence.”
Recorded knife crime offences are at their highest level since records began. We know that the effectiveness of the police has been compromised, as arrests have halved in a decade and the sanction detection rate of charges and cautions has plummeted. Tory cuts have consequences.

Tom Pursglove: I well recall the right hon. Lady’s predecessor arguing from the Dispatch Box, back in 2015-16, that the Government should cut police spending by 10%. Does she regret her party’s former Front-Bench team making that case, because if we extrapolate her argument out, would not that mean that we would have even fewer officers today?

Diane Abbott: I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the fact that the Labour party is under new management now.
This may be, as Ministers say, the largest funding increase since 2010, but it is still inadequate, as ordinary police officers, senior police officers and PCCs say.

Angela Eagle: My right hon. Friend is recognising the truth that resources are connected to results when it comes to dealing with crime. Does she agree that the cuts that have seen 1,000 officers disappear from the Merseyside force have created a situation where those who are committing crimes see less evidence of the police being able to follow them up, which creates a view on the street that lawlessness can be got away with? That actually encourages criminality while making it much harder for the law-abiding to report it to the police.

Diane Abbott: I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, on Merseyside we have also seen an alarming rise in knife crime.
Part of the problem is the new demands on policing to which the Home Secretary referred. However, an increasing problem is that, with the collapse of public sector funding elsewhere, the police have become the public service of last resort, particularly in relation to issues such as mental health. We will be debating this later this afternoon, but central Government have taken 60%—£16 billion—out of local government funding since 2010. Cuts to youth services, housing and schools must have a bearing on levels of crime, particularly youth crime.
Let me touch on something that is often not discussed—the problem with having annual funding reviews. Ministers will be aware of the long-standing concern about annual funding. City of London police has said:
“Annualised funding allocations result in short term strategies that deliver short term impact”,
and that they are a constraint. The PCC for Northamptonshire, Stephen Mold, said that that the
“imposition of one year funding settlements…hampers effective long term financial planning”.
And the PCC for Dorset, Martyn Underhill, said that the
“absence of any indication of funding beyond 12 months”
compromises the ability to formulate
“a realistic medium term financial plan”.

Jack Dromey: My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, standing up for our police service. The Government may be in denial about the clear link between falling numbers and rising crime, but will my right hon. Friend join me in saying that what is also wrong is the grotesque unfairness on the part of the Government? Why is it that the high-need West Midlands police service gets cut by 25%, while Surrey police service—with much lower need and lower crime levels—gets cut by 11%? It is not just about cutting the police service; it is about the grotesque unfairness that goes with it.

Diane Abbott: I agree with my hon. Friend on the question of unfairness, particularly in relation to the precept, but I will come to that issue in a few minutes.
The Home Secretary needs to face up to the fact that there is an issue regarding the poor overall financial management of the police by the Home Office. Let me remind him what the National Audit Office had to say last year about the Home Office’s overall management of police finances:
“We concluded that there were significant gaps in the Department’s understanding of demand and of pressures on the service, and it needed to be better informed to discharge its duties of overseeing the police and distributing funding.”

Sarah Jones: I completely agree with what my right hon. Friend is saying. Does she agree that the knife crime prevention orders that were announced this week as a late addition to the Offensive Weapons Bill have had no cost impact assessment whatever, that there is no evidential basis for them and no assessment of the impact on equalities, and that introducing them is therefore very short-sighted and probably expensive and ineffective?

Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of knife crime prevention orders. One problem is that the issue is not the state of the law, but policing capacity.
The National Audit Office also said:
“The Home Office’s light touch approach to overseeing police forces means it does not know if the police system is financially sustainable. It lacks a long-term plan for policing and significant gaps remain in its understanding of demand for police services and their costs.”
And this brazen Home Secretary expects us to join him in the Lobby tonight.
Let me move on to the precept, because I cannot leave any discussion about the funding of the police without mentioning how Ministers insist on talking as if allowing PCCs to raise more money through the precept is somehow new central Government funding. I would have thought that Home Office Ministers might have learnt from the admonition of the chair of UK Statistics Authority, Sir David Norgrove, who recommended that
“the Home Office’s Head of Profession for Statistics speak to communications colleagues about the importance of clear public statements about police funding and ensure they understand the structure of police funding.”

Vicky Ford: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Diane Abbott: I am trying to make some progress.
Maybe the chair of the UK Statistics Authority should have spoken to Ministers. Ministers want to claim that allowing an increase in the precept to fund the police somehow counts as a loosening of the purse strings. It really is not. The precept is not some magic money tree.

Vicky Ford: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Diane Abbott: I am afraid that I have to make progress.
The precept is a tax; it is paid for by increasing charges on residents.

Stephanie Peacock: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the powerful speech that she is making. Does she agree that areas such as Barnsley will be able to raise significantly less money than wealthier areas? This is absolutely outrageous. Crime is going up, police numbers are going down and this Government are in complete denial.

Diane Abbott: I agree. The precept is a tax, and Ministers know perfectly well that urban forces tend to be able to raise less per head from council tax than those in more rural areas. Urban forces such as the Metropolitan police and the West Midlands, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire forces rely more on central Government grants for their funding than rural forces.

Kevan Jones: There is also a direct shift of spending to local forces on pension liabilities, which the Government are deliberately moving. The pension costs are going to be £330 million, yet the grant to local police forces is less than half that, at £153 million. In the case of Durham, that means that the police force’s pension allocation and core funding allocation will all be wiped out by this single pension liabilities debt, which has been moved on to it.

Diane Abbott: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The precept is not a progressive tax.

Vicky Ford: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Diane Abbott: The precept is a regressive tax that bears down disproportionately—[Interruption.] Had the hon. Lady waited, I might have given way.
The precept is a regressive tax that bears down disproportionately on poorer people and poorer regions. It is unfair on the population within a given region and it is unfair between regions. As the Police Federation said:
“They are passing the buck of funding the police service to the public by doubling the council tax precept that police and crime commissioners are allowed to charge.”
This is no way to fund a cohesive police force.
We see a rise in violent crime, cuts to police numbers and increasing concern about public safety. This Government have let down ordinary police officers and the public. Their overall management of police funding is demonstrably poor. And no, we will not be joining the Home Secretary in the Lobby tonight.

Lindsay Hoyle: Lots of Members wish to speak and I want to get everybody in, because this issue is important to every Member of  Parliament. My suggestion is that we have a six-minute time limit, but those who can speak for less than six minutes will be very welcome.

Andrew Selous: I am pleased that the total resources for Bedfordshire police will receive a welcome increase next year to £112.7 million from the current £104.6 million. However, even between rural forces, there is a difference in the ability to raise revenue from band D properties. For example Hertfordshire, which is a neighbouring force, has many more band D properties than Bedfordshire, and that is something of which the Home Office needs to be aware.
It is often said in the House that the Government’s first duty is to defend this country. I would agree with that regarding our wonderful armed services, but I think we would also all agree that that duty to defend also relates to our constituents as they go about their everyday business in their homes and at their places  of work.
Because of the way in which Bedfordshire is configured, there are significant issues about how the Bedfordshire police force works for my constituents and for Central Bedfordshire Council—the local authority in the middle of Bedfordshire. There is significant demand on police resourcing in Bedford and in Luton, in particular, which means that the middle part of the county is often extremely challenged. We are also one of 19 police forces to suffer from damping, which was introduced by Labour in 2004. In 2015, this Government had the courage to state that that was unfair. They tried to look at revising the national police funding formula to reverse the unfair impact of damping, which affects 18 forces along with Bedfordshire. In Bedfordshire’s case, that means a loss of about 90 officers a year—about £3.3 million of funding that we have lost every year since 2004. I would expect that issue to be dealt with as we look forward to next year’s comprehensive spending review, which the Home Secretary quite rightly pointed to. There is good news on this year’s funding, but still more work to do regarding next year’s very important comprehensive spending review.
I am struck by the fact that the police are less local than they used to be. Many years ago, there would be police officers living in individual villages in my constituency. Up until 1 October 2012, there were fully-functioning, 24/7 first responder police stations in Leighton Buzzard and in Dunstable. I want to restore that state of affairs. We have had incidences of shoplifting in our supermarkets, handbags being stolen from ladies outside nightclubs and bicycles being stolen from children, and when my constituents have rung the police, no one has been available. We also have issues with county lines operations —drug gangs coming up from London or down from Birmingham—which have had a significant impact on Bedfordshire police.
As has been said, we ask the police to do too much, particularly with regard to mental health. A failure to regulate children’s homes properly puts significant extra burdens on police resources when the police have to find children who have run away. The owners of those homes should be doing much more and should be far more responsible. I will shortly be taking that issue up  with a Minister in the Department for Education. Significant challenges to policing and to law and order arise from the prevalence of Traveller sites in my constituency. We have had three major incidences of modern slavery—this is all a matter of public record and fact—and considerable extra demands are placed on Bedfordshire police as a result.
The chief constable wrote to me recently to say that on Sunday 16 September last year, the force literally ran out of officers as it had to deal with seven teenagers being stabbed in Luton, four rapes, five prison officers being assaulted in Bedford prison, a fatality in a road traffic incident, a 16-year-old being murdered in Bedford, and people with gunshot wounds coming into the accident and emergency department of Luton and Dunstable Hospital. That was a particularly demanding Sunday, but such demand is not unusual in Bedfordshire.
We should look at what the previous Mayor of London did through the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime when he identified the MOPAC 7, which were the seven crimes of most concern to the public: burglary, vandalism, criminal damage, theft from motor vehicles, theft of motor vehicles, violence with injury, and theft from the person. He focused on driving down those seven areas of crime, and that was successful. If we could relieve the police of some additional duties—perhaps regarding mental health and children’s homes—that are not properly their responsibility, they could go back to those seven really important areas.
We need to think about what builds law-abiding communities. Cicero said in 52 BC: “We have a natural propensity to love our fellow men, and that, after all, is the foundation of all law.”

George Howarth: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). I agree with him on one specific point: we really do need a better understanding of why mental health is a problem within crime and of how it should be dealt with more appropriately than is currently the case.
I do at least agree with the Home Secretary on two points. First, he was right to pay tribute to the work that the police do on behalf of us and our communities. It is only the police who take the risk of trying their best to protect us. Secondly, I agree that it is his job to keep the people of this country and our communities safe. However, the sad fact is that although he acknowledges that that is the case, he does not seem to do much about trying to turn it into reality.
Much of what I say will be about facts and figures, but it is important to say that behind those facts and figures lie some incredibly terrible human tragedies. I will talk about knife crime in a moment. That is about a young life lost needlessly and, more than that, about a family who, for the rest of their lives, will be left asking, “What if?” We must always be mindful that while facts and figures tell one story, the effect on people’s lives is often much more pronounced and vivid than the figures alone show.
First, inevitably, I want to talk about funding for Merseyside police. My hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) and for Garston and Halewood  (Maria Eagle) both referred, in slightly different ways, to the way in which the loss of central Government funding has affected policing in our constituencies. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) made a similar point about the closure of a police station in his constituency as an example of how things play out on the ground. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood rightly pointed out that since 2010-11, the Merseyside police force has lost £90,396,258 of central Government funding. That is a lot of money, and it has consequences. It means that we have lost over 1,000 police officers, which must have an impact on crime. We have lost over 200 PCSOs, and that in itself must have an impact on crime, at least in the sense of how the police get information about what is going on in communities. We cannot hide from the fact that there has to be a direct relationship between police on the ground and the ability to deal with crime.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was right when he pointed out in an intervention on the Home Secretary that the additional money that the Government have provided will mostly cover only the additional cost of pensions. On Merseyside, of the £8.8 million of additional money that will be provided through the central Government grant, which is of course welcome, £7.8 million will go directly to plugging the gap in pensions.
At the same time, we are experiencing steep rises in very serious crimes. On Merseyside, over the past 12 months, knife crime has increased by 32%. I have talked about the impact of that on young lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood and I, along with others, want to get into a discussion with the Government about how the problem can be better dealt with by giving young people alternatives to a life of crime and by providing the police with the ability to intervene more effectively. After many attempts, we have not even been able to get a meeting with the Policing Minister. I have asked him in previous debates to meet me to discuss this, but answer comes there none. There has also been a massive 47% rise in domestic abuse, which means that whole families are in terrible crisis, with terrible problems.
There is so much more to say, but to keep within the limits you have set, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will conclude by simply saying this. The Government have done too little too late to resolve the problem that our communities and police forces face. Frankly, if the first job of the Government and the Home Secretary is to deal with community safety, I am afraid that this settlement goes nowhere near assuring people that they will be able to carry out that duty.

Marcus Jones: It is good to see my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister on the Front Bench. I have pursued him with vigour for some months on the issue of police funding, including for Warwickshire. I thank him for the efforts he has made, the case he has put to the Treasury and what has been achieved so far, with additional police funding this year of up to £970 million. My constituents will be pleased because we face some significant issues in my constituency at the moment. We suffer a lot of cross-border crime that comes from the larger cities in the west midlands—  particularly crimes such as car key burglary, car jackings and burglary—and that has weighed heavily on my constituency in the last two years or so. I am therefore extremely grateful that extra resources will go to Warwickshire police, which it can use to bolster not only its response, but the prevention of those crimes.
Before I talk more about funding, I want to thank the police officers of Warwickshire for their determination and for the hard work they do for the people of Warwickshire. They do not always get it right, but they get it right in the vast majority of situations, which the public appreciate. The public in my area want to work with the police. We have a neighbourhood watch Facebook group made up of 15,000 residents, who provide the police with information about issues across my constituency.
For example, around Christmas time, there was a massive spate of car crime, including car key burglaries. Because of the work of the community and the police together, the person committing those crimes was apprehended. Unfortunately they only admitted to 15 of those crimes and, despite perpetrating a spate of crimes across the area and being a repeat offender, they received a measly three-month sentence. That is not a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister, but it is certainly one for the Justice Secretary. We must support police in our communities, but our courts and judicial system must also support our police to ensure that when they do their job, they are backed up.
Warwickshire is one of the smallest forces in the country, as the Minister knows. Our police and crime commissioner has been very happy with the last two settlements. He ran a significant consultation with local people on the precept to which 2,400 people responded, the vast majority of whom confirmed that they would be willing to spend an extra £2 per month—£24 a year—to see more police on the streets. As a result of last year’s changes, we see 50 more officers on the streets in Warwickshire. As a result of this year’s changes, we will see another 85 officers and another 15 police staff, including a number of investigators, who are extremely important in bringing offenders to book.
There is a balance to be struck with council tax. The public in my area have been quite content to pay some extra on their council tax in the last two years, but I am not sure that that is a good long-term strategy. Opposition Front Benchers seem to say that council tax takes money from local taxpayers and Government money is not taxpayers’ money, but of course it is all taxpayers’ money, so we need to strike a balance. Any money that the Government or police forces spend is taxpayers’ money.

Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Marcus Jones: I will not give way because of the time limit that Mr Deputy Speaker said we should observe. We have to get the balance right between the money we collect in national taxes and give to our police service and the money we collect locally.
Finally, I want to mention another local issue that I hope will be picked up in the spending review, which is what I call “Warwexit”. Unfortunately, as the Minister will be aware, the strategic alliance between West Mercia police and Warwickshire police, through which each force has saved £35 million, has been abruptly brought to an end by West Mercia. I hope that in the spending  review, the Minister and the Treasury will look carefully at the impact on Warwickshire, bearing in mind that it was not part of bringing the arrangement to an end.
I welcome the settlement. It is a good step in the right direction, but we still need to do more to make sure that our police have the right resources to keep our local population safe.

Maria Eagle: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) made clear, central Government funding for Merseyside police has been cut by more than £90 million since 2010. As a consequence, we have lost almost a quarter of our police officers. There has been a commensurate loss in civilian staff, who are down by a third. We have also lost 43% of our PCSOs, who are the eyes and ears of the police on our streets, the cornerstone of neighbourhood policing and an early warning system of incipient street and gang problems. The loss of those PCSOs will cause problems.
That lamentable decline in policing capacity has been the deliberate choice of the Lib Dem-Tory coalition Government from 2010 and the Tory Governments since 2015. They have all chosen to undermine public service provision in our great northern cities, including Liverpool, in the name of economic necessity, but this “austerity” has actually been a political project in pursuit of the ideology of a smaller state. It has affected Merseyside police severely. As a direct consequence of our police force being weakened, crime has been increasing in the last five years, and it is up overall by 162.5% on Merseyside. The argument peddled by Ministers that that has nothing to do with the £90 million cut in resource, and the loss of a quarter of our police and 43% of our PCSOs is laughably unconvincing. My constituents are not fooled; they know there is a link.
Just in the last year on Merseyside, overall crime is up by 12%, but that figure masks worrying trends that are developing: violent crime is up by 26% in one year; burglary is up by 23% in one year; drug crime is up by 25% in one year; and possession of weapons is up by a staggering 46% in one year. The Minister will know—my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley reminded him—that Merseyside colleagues and I have met Ministers over the last three years to discuss the increasing incidence of firearms discharges and shootings on Merseyside due to increasing and worrying gang-related serious and organised crime. Another meeting seems to be off the agenda, based on the response we have received. We have repeatedly received what have unfortunately turned out to be empty promises of assistance, but not one penny piece extra for tackling this increasing level of serious and organised violence.
The Secretary of State has today proclaimed that resources are being increased in real terms, but the  extra £161 million increase in cash terms for all local police forces, in addition to the one-off pension grant of £142 million, amounts to less than the Government-imposed changes on pension liabilities. That means that, for the ninth year in a row, central Government funding to local forces will in fact be cut in real terms.
The Secretary of State proclaims that he has generously allowed local police and crime commissioners to increase their council tax precept from £12 per household a year  to £24. He then tries to claim that he has himself provided the extra resources that this allows to be raised, if it is imposed in full and everybody pays it. In fact, it is of course hard-pressed council tax payers, many of whom in Liverpool are already at breaking point to pay their bills, who have to find this money.
What does this settlement mean for Merseyside? First, the extra £8.4 million of Government grant is less than 10% of the cuts that Merseyside police have sustained since 2010. Crime is now rising strongly and more police resources are needed effectively to get to grips with it. Secondly, as the Merseyside police and crime commissioner has made very clear, the extra £8.4 million will be entirely consumed by the pension black hole caused by the Government. Talk about giving with one hand and taking away with the other. The Secretary of State’s sleight of hand in providing a real-terms cut while proclaiming he has done the opposite is disappointing. In fact, there is no new money for running police services on Merseyside in this settlement whatsoever. How characteristic of this Tory Government that they then try to claim that there is. They have left increasing the precept on already hard-pressed council tax payers on Merseyside as the only way of practically supporting our police with new resources.
It is fundamentally unfair to use council tax to fund increased resource for local police because it takes no account of the policing challenges in each area, and it allows better-off areas with a higher council tax base and lower levels of crime to raise the same, if not more, than areas such as Merseyside that have greater challenges but less ability to raise funds. It makes public safety a postcode lottery, with better-off areas that have lower levels of crime able to do better. Even with this rise in the precept, the money recouped across the country will be a drop in the ocean compared with the £2.7 billion real-terms cut in policing budgets since 2010, as the National Audit Office found when it looked at this.
Is it any wonder that police-recorded violent crime is now at the highest level on record, that the number of knife offences is at the highest level since records began, that arrests have halved in a decade and that there are 2 million unsolved crimes? While we are afflicted with a Tory Government who believe in never-ending austerity in pursuit of their political priority to shrink the state, we can expect nothing better.

Richard Drax: I really do not want to enter the blame game, but I am going to start by just reminding the House and putting it on the record that, in 2010, we did inherit a financial mess. [Interruption.] Opposition Members groan but it is a fact. I want to add that I accept that that was also due to the banking crisis and other factors, but we inherited a mess and that mess has taken time. Eight years on, I accept that we are now in power and it is our responsibility to sort out our priorities, which I will come to in a moment.

Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Drax: No, I will not give way. I am afraid I only have a short time. I want to press on.
I cannot stress enough my gratitude and that of my constituents to Dorset police, whose officers and PCSOs do their level best to keep us safe in our homes and on our streets. Secondly, I am grateful to our chief constable, James Vaughan, and the Dorset police and crime commissioner, Martyn Underhill—they both do an outstanding job—who will be providing the information I am giving to the House today to the police and crime panel on Thursday.
May I praise the Policing Minister, who I know has inherited a very difficult job? He is extremely accessible and helpful to me whenever I want to see him, and I am very grateful to him and those on the Front Bench for all the help they try to give us.
Dorset police face three problems—I must raise them on the Floor of the House because I believe it is my duty to do so: the continued reduction in Government funding, the increased demand in volume and complexity, and the continued financial pressures. First, on the reduction in Government funding, the general grant is designed to support the force in its core requirements, but the funding mechanism was frozen over 10 years ago and attempts to correct errors in calculations were abandoned, although they would have resulted in substantial funding increases. Unhelpfully so far as Dorset is concerned, the security grant was reduced by £400,000 this year after the policing budget was set.
Secondly, on volume and complexity, this cannot be overstated and Members on both sides of the House have commented on it already. There are new crimes, such as crimes across county lines that we are all aware of, cyber-crime and paedophilia online—tackling that places a huge demand on resources—quite apart from banking fraud and all other frauds online. There are new resources, such as drones, which save money on helicopters, but need training and expertise. There is the online non-emergency directory and the universal roll-out of body-worn cameras. The biggest single cost to police resources has been welfare-related calls, with more repeat calls from the vulnerable, including those with mental health issues. That was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). Also, there has been a 100% increase in demand for resources to investigate missing persons over the past eight years. Dorset’s population has increased by 20,000—by about 3%—this year, with changes to demographics and diversity, but there is absolutely no national recognition of this financially. Finally, airports and ports are busier, but the specific small grant has been reduced.
Thirdly, on the continued financial pressures, there is inflation, pay awards and pensions, which are all unavoidable. The police work for longer, retire older and no longer have a final salary scheme, which reduces pensions bills, but the Treasury is still attempting to pass pension costs on to police budgets. Dorset police are grateful for the £3 million to pay for that, but it still leaves Dorset to meet costs of £500,000 to meet that problem. There is no such grant funding for future years and that is of concern. Paying for pensions alone would require a precept of £10.70. There are also the costs of officer recruitment, capital requirements and national requirements, which all continue to rise.
Dorset’s revenue and capital grant for 2019-20 has been set at £67.3 million. That represents £87.30 per person and is the second lowest nationally. Eight years  ago, the equivalent figure was £91.70. This settlement from central Government, which amounts to 2.1%, does not keep up with unavoidable cost pressures such as inflation, pay awards and pensions. Raising the precept to the maximum allowed of £12 per household this year has resulted in additional income of £3.4 million. That desperately needed money was spent in four main  areas: protecting people at risk of harm, working with communities, supporting victims and reducing reoffending, and transforming for the future.
While we are grateful for this increase, the pressures for the next year are even greater. The bottom line, even with a continued and relentless drive on efficiencies, is that there will still be a need to increase the precept for 2019-20. The Secretary of State has given permission for PCCs to raise the precept by £24 in 2019-20, but this a delicate matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) has mentioned, and household budgets are already under strain.
The worrying fact is that, unless there is more money for the police in Dorset in the mid-term, more frontline officers might have to go, and this is unacceptable to me and my constituents. It may be of interest to the Minister and certainly to other Conservative Members that in Dorset, overnight, we have no more than 50 officers on duty at any one time. In my view, the police force is a force, not a service. Its job is to prevent crime and catch criminals. Let us cut out all the waffle, give it the assets and money to get on with the job and keep our people safe.

Mike Hill: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). Like him, I praise the work of my PCC, Barry Coppinger.
In November 2018, I wrote a letter to the Home Secretary highlighting the effects of underfunding in Cleveland police. This followed an alarming report on the national BBC News exposing a lack of police numbers in Hartlepool. My letter was co-signed by every Labour MP in the Cleveland police area, yet to date I have had no response.
Since 2010, this small force has lost 500 serving police officers and 50 PCSOs. That is a 37% reduction in staffing, alongside a budget cut of £39 million. The title of the BBC News documentary was “Hartlepool: The town where ‘police don’t come out’”. It revealed that on an average Saturday night the town, which has a population of some 96,000, had only 10 officers on shift. The film exposed the severity of Government cuts to policing and struck fear into our communities. It was seen as an open advert to criminals and has left citizens feeling under threat. The awareness of a lack of visible policing has led to increased reports from constituents of their concerns, including a noticeable trend in failure to attend reported crimes, despite the fact that Cleveland police records 163 crimes a day on average.
We all know that police forces face increased and complex challenges such as cyber-crimes. Cleveland police are no different and have successfully adapted to meet such demands. Working with partner agencies, they have created a strong focus on crime prevention, tackling drug dealing and human trafficking. But they too recognise the need to invest more in visible policing across the force area. They readily admit that
“things in policing are not ok”
and that the service is
“nowhere near where it needs to be.”
Last month, the custody suite at Hartlepool police station was mothballed, meaning that officers now have to make a 30-mile round trip to Middlesbrough, just to take people into custody—a ludicrous situation given staffing numbers and the already existing fear about safety on our streets. While I do not agree with that decision, the reality is that underfunding to the tune of £39 million, or 26% in real terms, from Government grants over the last seven years is taking its toll. In order to help Cleveland police keep the streets of Hartlepool safe, the Government need to make urgent improvements to the funding formula, and not just allow for increases in police precepts, which both penalise local taxpayers and push the perception of blame on to local forces.
The current situation is simply not good enough and our hardworking officers and PCSOs deserve better.

Peter Aldous: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill).
In the short term, the settlement enables the police and crime commissioner for Suffolk to deliver his immediate plans for the local police service and in that respect it is to be welcomed. I shall vote for it. The settlement this year, including the council tax increase, provides a cash increase of £9.2 million compared with £3.5 million last year. That will help to meet the additional pension liability, will fund a 2% pay increase and will lead to the recruitment of more frontline police officers. That said, difficult choices have had to be made, including a significant reduction in PCSOs, who provide an important link with local communities.
Suffolk police does a great job, but if it is to continue to do so into the long term its funding settlement needs a radical shake-up and additional Government resources need to be provided. Today, policing in Suffolk presents significant challenges. There have always been additional costs associated with policing of rural areas. Some  42% of Suffolk’s population is rural, which makes Suffolk one of the most rural counties in the country. But today there are additional 21st-century challenges to meet, including county lines, predominantly in Ipswich; an increasingly elderly population, with the number of citizens with dementia predicted to rise to more than 18,000 by 2025; and significant areas of deprivation, not just in towns such as Lowestoft but often hidden in rural areas.
Suffolk police is meeting these increasing challenges, often with one arm tied behind its back. The cost of a police officer in Suffolk is £78 per head compared with a £98 average for England and Wales. The workload of an officer in Suffolk is 150 cases per year, compared with 132 for an officer in neighbouring Norfolk and 122 in the west midlands. Suffolk has one of the lowest costs of policing per person per day—44p compared with a national average of 55p in 2017-18. If Suffolk received the national average funding, our budget would be increased by nearly £30 million. If Suffolk police received the same level of Home Office funding as Norfolk police, with which we collaborate very closely and effectively, our grant would be £3.5 million higher.
Those disparities have been around for a very long time, but if they are not addressed Suffolk police will not be able to continue to meet the increase in demand for its services and to combat the increasingly complex nature of crime. As you well know, Madam Deputy Speaker, Suffolk is a great place to live, but from a crime perspective I am afraid that it is no longer a rural idyll. We have a wide variety of policing challenges to meet, and a new, sustainable, long-term system of funding needs to be put in place through the comprehensive spending review.
Feedback from residents shows that they are increasingly dissatisfied with the status quo, and we need to respond to their concerns. I urge the Minister, who has listened sympathetically over the past year, to work with the Police and Crime Commissioner for Suffolk, other Suffolk Members of Parliament and me to deliver this and to put the funding of policing in Suffolk on a secure long-term footing.

Clive Lewis: It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous).
Norfolk constabulary has been forced to endure eight consecutive years of inadequate funding settlements, adding up to £40 million in cuts by 2020. In that time, more than 100 officers have been lost from our streets, all of our PCSOs have been abolished—we are the first force in the country to do that—10 police stations have been shut and the last one open in Norwich does not even open for a full week. This has left Norfolk with one of the lowest per capita number of police in the country.
The consequences in our area and nationwide have been stark. Never since records began has police-recorded violent crime been as high as it is today. Never since records began has knife crime been as high as it is today. Arrests have halved in a decade. Unsolved crimes stand at an almost unthinkable 2 million cases. Police and Home Office violent crime figures show that Norfolk has experienced the largest four-year surge in knife  and gun crime anywhere in the country. That is topped off by serious crime being predicted to increase by up  to 29%.
The Home Secretary, in presenting this statement, was looking to position himself as the man to clear up this mess, but he has voted for every single police cut since 2010. He is as much responsible for the crisis in Norfolk as the Prime Minister. It is a consequence of their political choices.
The Minister will no doubt claim that this year Norfolk will get an extra £3.2 million from central Government, but that will be totally wiped out by the £3.4 million cost of pension contributions imposed by the Treasury. Norfolk constabulary will be left with a cut in cash terms, never mind real terms. As is so often the case with the Government, they offer you a penny with one hand, while the other is in your pocket taking a pound.
Today, I want to reveal the latest twist in this tale of cuts and underfunding. As I told the House earlier, Norfolk constabulary has already taken the unprecedented decision to entirely abolish police and community support  officers. At the time, both I and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), the shadow police Minister, warned that that set a dangerous precedent. Now, we have discovered the next step. The constabulary has advertised for civilians, on £10 an hour and zero-hours contracts, to fulfil the role of guarding crime scenes. It describes the role as an “alternative reserve style model”. According to the job advertisement, the main activities of the role include “preserving crime scene integrity” and dealing with
“enquiries from public and media”.
Guards will also be expected to perform duties such as running the scene log and recording details of any witnesses who come forward. Criteria such as
“experience of working with confidential and sensitive information…dealing with confrontation”
and
“working in a police environment or similar”
were listed as desirable but not essential skills for applicants. As the chairman of the Norfolk Police Federation stated:
“with austerity, standing at a cordon is a luxury we cannot afford.”
These employees will save the force money, of course, but as we have warned the Government time and again, policing on the cheap will only put public safety at risk. Not only will it mean that there is no job security or guarantees for those employees, but our local police force will be hugely vulnerable to employees simply saying, “No thanks,” when they are called to ask for help. They are not and cannot be expected to be obligated to be there at every beck and call if they are not going to be given the respect of a real working contract that works in their interest.
In reality, where does this leave our police force? Who will be responsible if there is nobody to cover the vital role of protecting a crime scene? Who will be liable if a crime scene is breached, a witness lost, or any other eventuality where a civilian contractor is responsible? How do we avoid the risk that an ever-expanding casual civilian workforce is an easy target for criminal exploitation, infiltration or corruption? How long can it be before this becomes a path to the full privatisation of entire roles that are currently the responsibility of the police? Perhaps the Minister could answer that in his summing up.
The next step will inevitably be either an erosion of the status of the police, no doubt including their pay and conditions as public sector workers, or a slow shrinking of their role, downgrading it one function at a time. This is the first move of its kind in the country, but I fear it will not be the last. Responsibility lies squarely with the Government, not just in their political choices but in the ideology that underlies them. Here we can see all the elements of that approach in one disturbing example: never-ending austerity and cuts to every public service, forcing them into permanent retreat; the attacks on those public services and public servants, and the creeping privatisation of their functions for corporate profit; the burden of taxation and priority for spending gradually shifting in favour of the more affluent and against the poorest; and the driving down of terms  and conditions and pay for ordinary workers to save money for their employers—all at the expense of the public good.
We have seen it before and we have seen it elsewhere, of course, but even in the 1980s Thatcher did not touch the police. Under this Government, no public service is safe. Unfortunately, the consequences are that the public are less safe. I will not stand by and watch. I reject the Minister’s mantra that the cuts and their consequences are inevitable and unavoidable. I urge the House to do the same.

Matt Warman: I begin by paying tribute to Marc Jones, Lincolnshire’s fantastic police and crime commissioner, Chief Constable Bill Skelly and the many officers who work so very hard to keep all my constituents safe. I do that because, as the Minister well knows from hearing my Lincolnshire colleagues talk at great length, Lincolnshire is and has long been the worst-funded constabulary per head in the country. We get about £157 per capita. In comparison, Merseyside and North Wales get about £220 per capita. The police funding formula, which I think all Members have mentioned or will mention, is at the root of a fundamental problem for Lincolnshire’s police force.
With that in mind, I welcome the funding settlement because it does address some of the most pressing concerns we face. It lays the groundwork for a long-term solution that I hope will allow Lincolnshire police to address the challenges that come with being a large rural county with an incredibly sparse population, as well as genuine deprivation. Some of the worst deprivation in the country is in my constituency and to the north of it in our coastal communities in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). We have real challenges that need to be addressed and the funding settlement will do that. The £3.3 million extra for a police force that does not have significant reserves on which it can draw will make a real difference, and we should welcome it. It is an absurd position for anyone to take that they will not vote for more money because they want even more money, leaving them with less money. Playing politics with this issue does not help our officers on the street.
What will Marc Jones do with the additional money? Following on from the results of a survey he conducted with local residents, he will expand the use of drones to across the whole county. This service has already caught alleged rapists and sexually violent offenders. It makes a huge difference and uses technology in a uniquely efficient way. He will expand neighbourhood policing so it is more visible and more focused on the vulnerable. He will also invest in a new fleet of vehicles, which will again make a real difference. The police force has already invested in improved call handling to enable the somewhat maligned 101 service to work better. It has a new way to deal with firearms licensing, so we are able to provide better value for money for taxpayers. It has a very productive relationship with G4S, delivering very good value for taxpayers on custody suites, freeing up officers to do what they must do most: fight crime and protect our constituents from the effects of crime.
I have to be honest with the Minister, who has been incredibly helpful to me personally on this difficult issue, and say that it is with mixed feelings that I vote for the settlement. I know it does the right thing today and it will do the right thing in years to come, but it does not solve the fundamental issue that the funding formula  imposes on a constituency such as mine. It does not go anywhere near addressing the historical underfunding of police forces such as Lincolnshire. The figure of £157 per head compared with £220 in Merseyside and Wales is an indictment of previous systems.
Of course I accept the fact—the Opposition might not like it—that we are still living with the consequences of the financial crash. We have to ensure that we live within our means for this police funding settlement. However, we surely must ensure, for my constituents as well as for people up and down the country, that in future we do all we can to deliver a fair funding settlement. My constituents see rising crime and a diversification of crime, whether modern slavery or newer kinds of crime, in particular cyber-crime.
I sincerely find it inexplicable that Members would not vote for more money because they want even more money. [Interruption.] It is indisputably an increase for Lincolnshire. [Interruption.] Lincolnshire police will be getting £3.3 million more than they would otherwise be getting. That is more money. If the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) wants to vote against the settlement, she is welcome to do so, but it is still more money. She will be voting against an increase in funding for the police. I would defend, to a certain extent, raising council tax locally. As others have said, however, that is not a sustainable way forward. I hope the Minister will accept that many of us are voting for it because in future we want to see root-and-branch improvement across police funding. That is what we need, even though today’s settlement is to be welcomed.

Preet Kaur Gill: Violent crime is rising after years of cuts to the police. The latest figures, published last month by the Office for National Statistics, show that there were 65,914 violent crimes in the area served by West Midlands police between September 2017 and September 2018. That figure is 26% higher than the previous year, which saw stalking and harassment rise by 54%. I ask the Minister to take a moment to let those statistics sink in. Violent crime rose by more than a quarter in one year. The Secretary of State assures us that the number of police and the depth of the cuts do not directly cause crime to rise. Will he come to my constituency and tell residents that? Will he come and look my constituents in the eye and tell them that under the Conservatives the 25% drop since 2010 in the total, full-time equivalent police workforce in the west midlands has played no role in the rise of violent crime?
On the frontline in the west midlands, we have lost more than 2,000 officers over the last eight years. That means 2,000 fewer officers serving the people of the west midlands and keeping us safe; 2,000 fewer officers to respond to reports; and 2,000 fewer officers to catch those responsible for committing crimes. Victims are being let down. Crimes are being reported but not responded to because there are not enough officers to deal with them.
Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services found that 22% of violent crimes were reported by the public but not recorded. The huge cuts to our police forces have affected not only police officer numbers but the number of community support  officers, which has fallen a staggering 40% under the Conservatives. How much longer can this go on? West Midlands police has been forced to make hard choices since 2010. Some £175 million of central Government cuts have hit not only police officer numbers but other essential resources, and the proposal before us leaves those levels static.
I have constituents calling my office and coming to my surgeries who feel unsafe and scared. They are appalled that this Government have consistently and savagely refused adequately to support our police force and protect our communities, so I call on the Home Secretary to listen to the concerns of the police and our residents, and to reconsider this new settlement so that we support the police in reversing the unacceptable rise in crime. It is not right that my constituents have had to set up street watch groups due to the lack of police officers.

Jessica Morden: Despite warm words from the Government about protecting the frontline, the funding provided in this year’s police settlement falls way short of what is needed to reverse nine years of central Government funding cuts. As others have said, the total increase in central Government funding for local forces, including the pension grant, amounts to £303 million, yet the Government-imposed increase in pension contributions will amount to £311 million, meaning a ninth consecutive year of real-terms cuts in local forces. That forces police and crime commissioners in Wales to make tough choices in setting the level of their council tax precept. As others have said, the Government are passing the buck on to the local council tax payer, but they wrap the two things up as good news.
Police budgets have been cut by £2.7 billion in real terms between 2010 and 2018, with central Government funding slashed by over £400 million since 2015. Figures for 2018 show police numbers across England and Wales at their lowest level in 30 years. Since 2010, more than 21,000 police officers and more than 16,000 police staff have been lost. My local force, Gwent, has seen its budget reduced by over 40% since 2010, leading to the loss of hundreds of officers and staff. We have retained our CSOs only thanks to the Labour-led Welsh Government, who, in fairness, do not have responsibility for policing, but who have stepped in to fund them. That is a hugely welcome intervention, but it should not hide the wider problem of inadequate funding for our local police forces, which is clearly in the UK Government’s hands.
Despite those pressures, Gwent maintained one of the highest spends on neighbourhood policing of any police force in the country. The force began recruiting again as soon as it could and last year added 176 new officers to its ranks. That has only been possible, however, because the chief constable and his team have done what they can to prioritise the areas that cause the biggest harm and because our local PCC, Jeff Cuthbert, has taken action and increased the precept. The precept increase this April will be the equivalent of 40 new police officers for Gwent, but the whole thing is unfair and he should not have had to do that.
Cuts to policing become all the more critical when we consider that crime rates are rising across the UK. The most recent available stats show a 20% rise in the overall crime rate in Gwent, a 32% spike in violent crime, a  40% increase in the number of robberies, a 31% increase in drug-related crime and so on. The link between rising crime and cuts to policing has been well made in this debate.
Gwent police has also had to divert resources towards tackling serious and organised crime. I would like to pay tribute to its Operation Jigsaw, launched last November to dismantle criminal gangs involved in child exploitation, violence, weapons and drugs. The work of Gwent officers on that is much appreciated in my community. We need a significant funding boost to help, and we need Ministers to review the Government’s long-term police funding strategy as a matter of urgency, particularly at a time when crime is becoming increasingly complex.
On pensions, although the Government belatedly agreed to offset the pension costs that they forced on police for 2019-20, they have still not committed to tackling the £417 million UK-wide pension black hole in 2020-21. In Gwent, the pensions shortfall will add another £5 million in extra costs to the force’s budget in 2020-21, equating to the cost of maintaining 100 police officers. It is vital that Ministers provide clarity on the future funding of police pensions as soon as possible.
Finally, the police are often reluctant to outline the effect that cuts have on the service, for absolutely understandable reasons, but morale in the service is low and we rely on the good will and dedication of officers and staff to keep things going. I thank the officers and staff of Gwent police for all they do—often at considerable risk and in extraordinary circumstances—to help to keep us safe, given the growing and changing nature of crime. I say to Ministers that they deserve more than warm words; they deserve to be resourced properly and given the tools to do the job.

Anna Turley: Crime, antisocial behaviour and the lack of visible policing is the biggest issue that I face when I am out on the doorsteps talking to my constituents. With the indulgence of the House, I will quickly read out an email that I received from one of my constituents; it exactly epitomises what I hear day in, day out.
My constituent says:
“I have lost count of the amount of times I have rang both the police and fire brigade because of youths trying to and succeeding in lighting fires on the playing field and also to the rear of my property. They are stealing wheelie bins, people’s fences and various items from the back of the shops to set on fire. There is also large groups of youths hanging around in the area. There are motor bikes and quads flying around like they are untouchable”—
I can vouch for that because I nearly got knocked flying myself by one the other week—
“both on the roads, the paths and the children’s playing field. There is drug dealing (that is very clear to see) that has been reported countless times, regular vehicles back and forth that the police would catch in the act if there was enough of them in wait. In the 6 years I have lived here the last 18 months have been the worst and getting even worse. Why? Because they know they are getting away with whatever they please because we have no policing. Things are going from bad to worse and people are starting to take matters into their own hands. I hope and pray you get the funding that is needed.”
That is not an unusual plea for me to get from my constituents.
I know that the police officers of Cleveland police are doing a fantastic job against all the odds, and I want to pay tribute to all of them today for the sacrifice and service they give to us, but they have been struggling with nearly a decade of year on year real-terms cuts. We have lost 500 police officers and 50 police community support officers—that is nearly 40% of our staff in Cleveland police. How on earth do the Government think we can have a functioning service that protects the public when they wipe out 40% of the resources—the members of staff—that are there to protect the public? That is why crime is rising. We have seen a rise of 12% in all crime in the Cleveland police area in the last year, and a shocking 95% increase in violent crime in the last five years. Those figures are appalling and are a direct consequence of the cuts to police numbers.
I do not understand how this funding settlement can have been set out with such clear inequality and such a lack of needs-based resourcing as we are seeing today. Cleveland has the fourth highest crime rate in the country, yet today it is receiving the lowest settlement in the country—just 5.77%. That is 1.42% lower than the average increase across the rest of the service. How can it be that the area with the fourth highest crime rate gets the lowest settlement? There is something fundamentally wrong with the way the Government are calculating the funding formula.
I would have liked to have put this question to the Home Secretary, but I cannot—I am sorry he cannot spare three hours of his life to listen to the entirety of this debate and hear from constituents around the country—so I will put it to the Minister instead. What on earth is the Government’s funding formula based on, given that every single force area that received a lower than average increase, bar one, was among those with the highest levels of recorded crime per head? It is just not right or equitable. In line with all the other cuts, this appears to be politically motivated, not based on need, which is unacceptable.
I am shocked that my constituents are being asked again to pay through the nose for higher local precepts. Not only has the Home Secretary hidden the local collection figure in his national funding announcement today, but—this is the most important point—my constituents are paying twice. They are already paying for their police service through their taxes and are now being asked to pay again through the precept.

Mike Amesbury: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is nothing but a Tory police tax—no ifs, no buts—on top of the £2.7 billion of cuts? That is from the National Audit Office, not the Labour party. Those are the facts.

Anna Turley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is what we should call it: a Tory police tax. Not only are people paying twice, but this is a regressive tax that hits the poorest the hardest, and once again it is the poorest who are seeing the highest levels of crime. People are paying twice and getting fewer police officers and a lower standard of service. It is not acceptable.
The poorest are being made to pick up the Government’s tab. It is no wonder that in my constituency there are private security firms being set up to reassure people who are desperately worried about their properties and businesses. That should not be happening in our society.  This is what a broken society looks like. People are having to set up companies just to maintain the peace and safety of the streets.
It is no wonder people are taking to public meetings and writing to me in desperation and despair. The funding formula is a disgrace. Cleveland police are yet again at the bottom of the pile. My constituents are angry and desperate and they want to know what the Government are going to do about it. In the meantime, I will not be voting for this funding formula tonight.

Marsha de Cordova: It is a pleasure to follow the fantastic speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley).
Police funding is a major issue in my constituency, as it is across London, and has become a major issue because of nine years of devastating Government cuts. In the name of austerity, central Government funding for the Metropolitan police has been cut by more than £650 million since 2011, and the Government are enforcing a further £263 million of savings by 2023.
Those cuts have consequences, including for police numbers. More than 3,000 police community support officers have been taken off London’s streets since 2010, which is a decrease of nearly 75%, and nearly 3,000 police officers have been taken off our streets, including hundreds from my streets in Battersea. Nearly one in six police officers in Wandsworth have been lost in the last three years alone. One result of these cuts has been the decimation of community policing, which used to ensure that police officers were embedded within communities, were trusted and knowledgeable, and had relationships with the local community.
As I said, funding cuts have consequences for the police and police cuts have consequences for crime, community safety and the wellbeing of my constituents. Just as the Government are slashing police funding, violent crime is rising dramatically. I wish the Home Secretary was in his place, because he refuses to acknowledge that the reduction in policing will lead to a rise in violent crime. It is a fact; the evidence is there. We on the Opposition Benches can acknowledge that, because we witness it daily.
Since 2013, violent crime has increased by 57%. In the first six months of last year in Wandsworth, it increased by more than 15%. Moped crime has been soaring.

Nick Hurd: indicated dissent.

Marsha de Cordova: I ask that the Minister show me some respect when I am making my speech. I did not interrupt him, and he should not interrupt me. In 2014, there were 1,000 incidents of moped crime. By 2017, that had shot up to 17,500. That is an increase, in my opinion.
I am regularly contacted by constituents who are understandably fearful and shocked, be they parents who fear their children will be caught up in crime or those who have been victims of crime themselves. They are being failed by this Government, and too often in Battersea, as across the country, we see the tragic consequences of those failures. Last year, my constituency had two fatalities from knife crime—two lives lost too soon as a result of a reduction in policing.
The police funding grant is just a drop in the ocean. It means a ninth consecutive year of Government funding cuts. It means police numbers falling to the lowest levels in three decades. It is even forcing Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to warn that the police are so stretched that
“the lives of vulnerable people could be at risk.”
Just as police cuts have consequences, cuts in public services across the board are also leading to a rise in crime. When public services are cut, that means that youth centres and services are cut; when school funds are cut, that means that there are not enough resources to enable our children to be taught and educated. Those are the results of this Government’s funding cuts.
If evidence were needed, the last nine years have shown that communities cannot be safe on the cheap. Austerity for the police and public services means misery, fear and crime for the people. My constituency is suffering from the Government’s failure to learn those lessons. Before more lives are lost, I call on them to invest in our services and invest in our communities.

Steve McCabe: I shall be voting against inadequate Government funding tonight. It is as simple as that, no matter how Conservative Members try to spin or twist it.
Let me give the House a snapshot of the events dealt with by West Midlands police in the 72 hours leading up to New Year’s eve. There was a ram raid at the Santander bank in Kings Heath, where the security guard was attacked with an axe. A pedestrian was killed in Highgate by a drunk driver. There was a shooting in Bristol Street, and an extremely serious and vicious assault on a woman in Halesowen. A 34-year-old man was stabbed to death. There was a carjacking in Handsworth, with the stabbed victim left in the road, and a 16-year-old boy was stabbed in Kingstanding. All those major events occurred alongside the normal everyday demands of policing. Our police are at breaking point.
Birmingham is the largest and most populated city outside London. Our crime figures have risen by more than 30% in the last three years, while charging is down by 26%. The level of violent crime in Birmingham is 40% higher than the national average, and the level of vehicle crime is the fourth highest in the country. No wonder people are fearful.
When Labour was last in power, we delivered a neighbourhood policing team in every area. Such an approach not only delivers visible policing, but provides a network of intelligence and fosters better community relations. When Labour left office, there were 143,000 police officers and nearly 80,000 police community support officers. Now neighbourhood policing is almost a nostalgia item. The teams that remain are stretched over areas three or four times the size of their original patch, and the West Midlands chief constable has warned that criminals know just how stretched his force is. The Home Affairs Committee warned that without extra funding, the police will be unable to fulfil their basic duties.
The chief constable blames a shortage of resources when his 999 response times are criticised. The reality is that 70% of 101 calls are now responded to by telephone  rather than a visit. Suspects who could be picked up are not, and jobs that are graded as not immediately important are delayed, sometimes for days or weeks. If someone is assaulted and manages to call the police during the assault, an immediate response is required, but if the person gets away and instantly gives a description of  the thief who still has their bag or wallet, the odds are that the call will be downgraded. As the chief constable puts it,
“How can a force that’s rated one of the most efficient in the country not get to 30% of emergency calls on time if it’s not a resource problem?”
He has lost 24% of his officers since 2010, so I think he has a point.
West Midlands police relies on central Government for 83% of its funding. That is why the unfair application of the formula, the extent of the cuts and an over-reliance on the council tax precept has such a pernicious effect on us. This settlement is based on council tax rising by up to £24 a year. I suppose that that is marginally better than the £50 increase that the Government originally planned, but it still means that people pay more, and that £24 only just covers inflation, resulting in a standstill budget.
We heard earlier from the Home Secretary that this is the first above-inflation increase in nine years. However, Ministers are not so keen to talk about where the grant goes: £7 million is pension grant; and the other £8.9 million has to cover pay rises from this year and last year, and existing pension arrangements. The increased contributions to the police pension scheme for West Midlands are now £15.4 million a year. I defy anyone to make those figures add up to extra money for policing.
Recently the Home Secretary, and even the Tory Mayor of the west midlands, admitted that our police are underfunded. After eight years of denial, the Home Secretary told “Birmingham Live” in September that “resources are an issue” and that he would push the Chancellor for more. It is a pity he did not push a bit harder. The Mayor acknowledged that
“the settlement for the West Midlands has been less favourable than for other areas.”
The reality is that the funding package is simply not enough to compensate for the damage that has been done, and our police will continue to struggle. They face changes in the nature and pattern of crime, and are expected to cope with falling numbers, outdated technology and fragmented leadership.
To compound it all, the Government now plan to impose another upheaval on the second largest force in the country by abolishing the post of police and crime commissioner just as it has begun to bed in, and replacing it with our hapless Mayor, who already has his hands full with rough sleepers, unemployment, skills shortages and transport issues. The last thing we need is a part-time commissioner borrowing from the police budget to finance his other pet schemes.

Edward Davey: I start by paying tribute to the police throughout our country. When we hear about violent crime, let us remember that the police are on the frontline of dealing with it. When we hear about the reduction in the number of police officers, let us remember that the  remaining police officers have to work even more overtime to make do. We should think about those police officers—the men and women who put their lives on the line for us day in, day out.
The Policing Minister needs to realise that people in our communities recognise the damage done by police cuts. My constituency has experienced one of the sharpest rises in violent crime in London and we have the slowest 999 response times in London. Antisocial behaviour in my constituency is higher than for some time, and there has been an increase in burglaries, particularly aggravated burglaries. People in places such as Chessington and New Malden are experiencing the reality of the police cuts, and they blame the Government. The Minister may say that that is the fault of the Mayor of London or someone else, but my constituents know where the fault lies. The £1 billion of real-terms cuts and the loss of 5,000 police officers since 2015 mean that they know where to pin the blame.
My constituency has lost more than 10% of our police force since 2015. We are being asked to support an “increase in spending”, but there is no increase in spending in the police grant report. The Government are not even funding the pension rise properly. The rise in the various allocations is just a freeze in real terms—it does not even manage to get above inflation. This is therefore a cut in national support for police funding throughout the country; there is nowhere hide from that.
The Home Secretary said, “We’re allowing council tax payers to pay the bill,” but that is not in the report. He was wrong when he answered me on that point. We are being asked to vote on the national support for our police forces in the report, but it is utterly inadequate and represents a real-terms cut.
When the Government talk about council tax, let us bear several points in mind. First, council tax is the most unfair tax in Britain today. The Government ask the most vulnerable and the poorest to pay a higher share than would normally be the case under national taxation, so their approach is unfair.
The situation is worse than that, however, as Labour Members have said. Many areas in the country have a low council tax base, so in order to make good the gap in national funds, people in poorer areas must be asked to pay even more. That cannot be right. If we relate council tax bases to the areas in which crime—particularly violent crime—is going up, we see some interesting findings. For example, the top five areas experiencing an increase in knife crime are all in the top seven areas where the police authorities rely on national Government funding—in other words, those areas where council tax rises will not do the job. If the Government are serious about knife crime, as they claim to be, they must realise that their over-reliance on council tax just will not do the job.
The situation is actually even worse than that. The Government want us to believe that, through these council tax rises that may or may not happen, police and crime commissioners will be able to recruit more police officers. Let us hope that that can happen, but I have talked to people in the Met police and to our local senior police commanders, and they say that they are having a real problem spending any money to recruit police officers. This is not just because of the lag effect of having to recruit new officers, but because the job is  no longer attractive, as police pay has been held down and people are aware that violent crime is on the rise. In all seriousness, the method that the Government are using might not deliver the police officers our communities need. We need a rise in police pay above what is currently proposed. We need a real package to be offered to existing police officers, and to the extra ones we will need if we are going to get on top of violent crime, knife crime and all the other things that are hitting our constituents.
The Government talk about the cost of spending more money on the police, but let us talk about the cost of crime. I am not even going to talk about the emotional cost, including the impact on people’s families, which we all know about. I am talking about the actual cost to the taxpayer. The cost of dealing with a knife fatality is £1.2 million. If we had more police officers and youth services working towards crime prevention, surely that would not only provide better value for the taxpayer, but prevent crime far better than the Government are currently doing. My colleagues and I will vote against the police grant motion because it is absolutely unacceptable in the face of rising crime in our communities.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. We obviously have to get all our colleagues in before the wind-ups start, so after the next speaker, I shall reduce the time limit to five minutes.

Kevan Jones: I want to begin by thanking the men and women of Durham constabulary, including the civilian support staff who work for the authority and do a fantastic job. Durham is a high-performing, efficient force, and it is not me saying that, but Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary. Since 2010—under the Liberal Democrat-Tory coalition and under this Government—Durham has lost 370 officers and 22% of its budget. According to the National Audit Office, that means that it has lost more than any other provincial force, yet it has been rightly pointed out that the demands on our police are increasing. It is ironic that very few Tory Members have spoken in the debate. I noticed that there was not a single person on the Tory Benches a few moments ago; the Whips have obviously been ringing round to get them in. What world do they live in? My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) hit the nail on the head when she said that the Government cannot cut mental health services and local authority services without expecting the effects to land on the police, and it is naive to ignore that fact.

Judith Cummins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the thin blue line is getting thinner? On top of cuts to police funding, our police face extra demands on their resources because of cuts to other services. Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary has stated that the police are distracted from dealing with crime because they are too busy dealing with the tens of thousands of cases resulting from a mental health service in crisis.

Kevan Jones: I totally agree. The police should be the last resort, not the first, as they are in many cases. The Government cannot cut services and expect the people who use them just to go away.
The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) is right. The motion refers to the
“Police Grant Report (England and Wales)”;
it does not say “Police Grant Report (England and Wales) and the ability to raise council tax”. The Government are spinning this as an increase in funding, but it is not. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) said that we must get the right balance between national and local funding, so I hope that his leaflets will include the fact that he is going to vote for an increase in taxes locally, but I am unsure that they will.

Marcus Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevan Jones: I will not.
Let me turn to what the motion is actually about. Durham police’s budget will not change. In extra core funding and the contribution towards pensions, which has already been mentioned, the force will receive £2.9 million, but all that money will be used to cover pensions, which were until recently the Government’s responsibility. The precept will raise £4 million, but after taking account of inflation, pay increases and increases in fees levied by the Government, there is no extra cash at all.
Somebody referred to the precept as a magic money tree, but that is not the case for forces such as Durham, which gets 75% of its funding from core funding and 25% from the precept. Surrey, for example, receives 55% from the precept and 45% from core funding. The Home Secretary said that police and crime commissioners’ flexibility to increase costs for band D properties will generate £24 per household, but the average in Durham will be £16. Some 55% of properties in Durham are in band A, and only 9% are in band D. We have fewer than 200 band H properties, which the PCC told me raised the great sum of £68,000 last year. That puts authorities such as Durham’s at a disadvantage.
The move away from national funding to an increased reliance on the precept, putting the onus on local tax payers, is not only unfair, but will not raise the same amount of money. Whereas Surrey will benefit from a large increase, deprived communities such as Durham will not be able to raise the same amount. Chief Constable Mike Barton and Police and Crime Commissioner Ron Hogg have raised the matter with the Policing Minister, but we have seen no movement, and it needs to be addressed, particularly if this movement away from national funding for our police forces happens next year as well. As we will see in the following debate on local government funding, under this Government the trend has been to move money away from the most deprived communities to some of the most affluent areas.
We are being asked to vote for an increase in taxation, and I hope that every Conservative Member who votes for the motion will tell their local electorate that. It is not down to the PCCs to make the decision, because they frankly have no choice but to increase the precept. The Home Secretary used the word “flexibility”, but that is complete nonsense, because if PCCs do not raise the precept, they will, in most cases, have to make even deeper cuts, leading to parts of certain areas not being policed at all, which is unacceptable.
As I said, we are being asked to vote for a tax this afternoon, so I will not be supporting the motion. It is unfair regarding how core funding is being distributed under the same formula. If that continues, forces such as Durham, which is high-performing, will be hampered in their ability to deliver such performance, because of the reliance on the council tax precept. The Minister must address that if it is how we are to fund policing in this country. The consensus over many years has been that policing is a national responsibility, and that needs to continue, not be eroded, although that is what the motion will do.

Tracy Brabin: It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who gave a passionate speech about this being a tax on our constituents.
In West Yorkshire, our communities have suffered immeasurably from an almost decade-long assault on our police force’s budget. We have lost almost 1,000 police officers and PCSOs in West Yorkshire since 2010, yet we are repeatedly told by this Government that the cuts are having no impact at all on our communities.
Well, the people of Batley and Spen would beg to differ. They are kept awake all hours of the night by nuisance bikes and antisocial behaviour. The livelihoods of independent businesses are under threat due to persistent burglaries. Fatalities are being caused by speeding cars. There is open drug dealing on our estates and, while we have been sitting in the Chamber, an elderly man was attacked on the greenway in Liversedge.
In addition, plummeting charge rates make for extremely worrying reading. The charge rate for sexual offences in West Yorkshire is among the lowest in the country, falling over 60% since 2015. The charge rate for violence against the person has dropped by 40%. People feel let down. They feel that justice is not something that is available to them. People have lost faith in the institutions that exist to protect them and their family. That is a sad indictment of this Government’s systematic dismantling of public services, with year after year of cuts to our councils.
Where do we go from here? Do the Government listen to the desperate pleas to back those who keep us safe, or do they simply put the burden on the taxpayer? Sadly, it is the latter. The very people who have witnessed police officers disappear from their neighbourhoods will be made to fork out more. Communities will be made to chip in to fill the gaping hole left by years of austerity.
Hard-pressed communities such as Batley and Spen should not be forced to bear this burden. Indeed, the Government’s proposed funding settlement will recoup barely a fraction of what has already been slashed from budgets over the past nine years. In West Yorkshire, the precept increase will raise a further £15 million, which sounds like good news, yet we have lost £140 million in central Government funding since 2010 alone.
Communities such as mine with a low council tax base will lose out disproportionately. Surrey, for example, with half the population and a quarter of the violent crime of West Yorkshire, will be able to raise almost exactly the same amount as Kirklees. How on earth can this be fair? Everyone should have access to the same  level of policing. For that to happen, the settlement should be equitable. This funding settlement is too little, too late and goes nowhere near addressing the many complex issues our police forces face.
Recently in Kirklees, there have been 55 arrests in relation to non-recent child sex abuse. This crucial investigation put an extra strain on my police force and the local authority, which is already pushed to the brink after years of cuts. The victims of these crimes have shown incredible bravery in coming forward and they deserve justice. They are courageous women who have shown massive dignity and they need full confidence in this process, which demands resources. Such investigations are complex and take time. I know the police are working hard to tackle these crimes, but they need resources.
I had the privilege of spending a day with our local police and I know the enormous pressure they are under—it is an uphill struggle. It is obvious to us, and I hope it is obvious to the Government, that we need more officers on the beat. That desire is shared by our incredibly hard-working police officers, PCSOs and staff, but they need the Government’s backing and they need someone to listen. This funding settlement is not the product of listening. It is unfair, it is unjust and it is not the answer. It amounts to another real-terms cut, another insult to our communities. It is simply not good enough.
I ask the Secretary of State, who is no longer in his place, to meet me and West Yorkshire police to discuss the funding opportunities and difficulties that Kirklees is currently under while it investigates these complex cases of child sexual exploitation. I will not be voting for the motion, and I encourage the Government to understand that communities such as Batley and Spen need to see fairness when it comes to the allocation of resources.

Jonathan Edwards: Unlike Scotland or Northern Ireland, Wales is subject to having its policing policy set by Westminster, in the capital city of another country, far away from where the police forces are carrying out their duties. Our underpowered Welsh Parliament has been consistently denied the powers necessary to deliver the policing our communities need. As a result of having had our hands tied by the Home Office, Wales has lost more than 500 police officers since 2010. That is an incredible statistic. We have not only lost police officers; in Dyfed Powys, we lost our dedicated police helicopter to a pooled England and Wales service. The performance of the new centralised service, as far as the communities I serve are concerned, is woeful.
If Welsh policing were funded on the basis of population, as is the case with other devolved services, police forces in Wales would be better off by £25 million per year. Instead, we are tied to England and Wales funding criteria that penalise our police forces in Wales. I say this as a constant critic of the Barnett formula. If Barnett were reformed on the basis of need, or even if the funding settlement between Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland were equalised upwards, the windfall for Wales would be even greater.
There is little excuse for keeping these powers in Westminster, given that the British Government are actively considering devolving swathes of the criminal  justice system to English cities such as Manchester. In Wales, not only do we have to suffer the humiliation of being treated as a second-class nation by Westminster, but we are not even given the same status and respect as English cities. Rather than being in control of our own destiny in Wales, we face a situation whereby the British Government make PCCs the scapegoats and abdicate their duty to properly fund policing, instead relying on PCCs to raise the local tax precept, with 63% of the increase in funding for local police coming from an increase in local taxation. This is Westminster creative accounting at its best. As many colleagues have said today, this local taxation is extremely regressive.
The British Government boast about increasing the personal allowance and freezing income tax rises, but these things are largely eroded by the increased council tax bills. PCCs are given the stark choice between either increasing the precept or cutting services. Police forces are given no certainty about when the comprehensive spending review and review of the funding formula will conclude—whether it will be in 2019-20 or 2020-21—further hindering their ability to plan.
Rural Welsh forces are uniquely handicapped by the gearing—the proportion of total funding that comes from the police grant and local taxation. Welsh forces have an approximately even split of Home Office and local government funding, with local taxpayers in rural Wales contributing considerably more to policing than local taxpayers in English cities. For example, Northumbria police receive 81% of their funding from the Home Office, whereas the figure for North Wales police is 47.5%. Due to the lack of devolution, and the England and Wales funding framework, the people of my country are being asked to disproportionally pay far more for their policing than other parts of the British state. Once again, the British Government are placing the burden on rural Wales to pay for urban England; this is truly a partnership of unequals. As public awareness rises in Wales, the position of the Unionist parties will become untenable, as they are once again putting their own narrow ideological British nationalist dogma before the interests of their constituents.
I would be grateful if the Minister answered a few questions in his wind-up. First, will he confirm when the comprehensive spending review and funding formula will be finalised? If that is to be in 2020-21 rather than in 2019-20, as is looking likely, will he give an assurance that his Department will allow the same flexibility with the grant uplift next year as this year, and give PCCs the flexibility to increase the precept once again? Finally, when his Government do finally agree the comprehensive spending review and the funding formula, what is he going to do to ensure that Welsh taxpayers are treated fairly?

Wes Streeting: There was a time when the Conservative party claimed to be the party of law and order, yet we do not see a single Conservative MP still standing in this debate to defend this police grant. And who can blame them, given their record? We have seen £1 billion cut from the Metropolitan police over the course of a decade; and police numbers at their lowest level in three decades, with the loss of 21,000 police officers, 16,000 police staff and 6,000 PCSOs since 2010. There has never been a better time to be a criminal in this country.
Police-recorded violent crime is at the highest level on record; knife offences are at their highest levels since records began; arrests have halved in the space of a decade; and unsolved crimes stand at 2 million. That is a record that any Minister ought to be ashamed of, yet instead of reversals to central Government cuts to police funding, all we get from this Government, aside from a few scraps from the Treasury table, is the insistence that police and crime commissioners—and people such as the Mayor of London and others—should increase the burden on ordinary council tax payers. The wool has been pulled from the people’s eyes. With this debate, as with the next one, the penny has dropped with the public, and they know that they are being asked to pay more in council tax for poorer services; more in council tax to fund local council services that are being cut by central Government; and more in council tax to pay for police numbers, because central Government are cutting the numbers available.
It is no good blaming police and crime commissioners or people like the Mayor of London. In London, Sadiq Khan has put £138 million into the police from London’s resources, investing in the violent crime taskforce and the violent crime reduction unit. In my community, the London Borough of Redbridge does not have responsibility for policing, but it has invested £1.5 million in CCTV for automatic number-plate recognition and repurposed local authority enforcement officers to beef up the uniformed presence on our streets. The council knows, as do my constituents who gathered in Gearies School at the weekend and those who gathered in my office to meet the borough commander, that our community has been left less safe under the Conservatives. We have been left less safe as a direct result of central Government cuts to policing.
The Home Secretary left himself looking like a complete idiot earlier by refusing to acknowledge, plainly and on the record, what everyone else in the country knows, which is that if we cut police, crime goes up. There is a direct link between the number of police and the incidence of crime in our community.
I never want to attend another funeral like the one I attended late last year: a funeral for a young man who was murdered on the streets of my constituency. I have never attended a funeral with so many young people present. Looking around that room, I knew there was something inherently wrong in so many people having to come together to mourn the loss of a young life. It is not just police cuts that lead to violent crime and deaths on our streets, but I say plainly and honestly to the Minister, who must surely understand this, that we cannot cut crime while cutting police and we cannot prevent crime while cutting public services to the extent that this Government are. Those services include public health services, mental health services, school budgets, and education and youth services to get young people off our streets and into services that give them opportunities to expand their horizons, improve their life chances and help them to find a better way to fund their future than a life of crime.
In a week in which it became clear that three men in their 30s and 40s have been released without prison detention for running county lines that affect my community, all I say to the Minister is that we have to be  tougher on criminals, we need more police on the streets and we have to provide a better future for young people in my constituency and throughout the country than the £400 a week that young people in our country are being offered by drug dealers to run drugs. Until we solve these problems, I will continue to see in my surgeries and in my community people crying out for more bobbies on the beat in Redbridge, which his exactly what I will continue to campaign for.

Jack Dromey: The first duty of every Government is to ensure the safety and security of citizens. Labour took that duty very seriously in government. We built up neighbourhood policing, with 17,000 extra police officers and 16,000 police community support officers. We introduced crime and safety partnerships and brought crime down by 43%. It was about not only detecting crime but diverting people from crime and preventing people from committing crime. It was a model celebrated worldwide.
In eight years of this Government, we have seen unprecedented cuts to our police service—21,000 nation- wide and 2,000 in the west midlands. Those cuts are characterised by grotesque unfairness: the west midlands has suffered a 25% cut to police budgets compared with an average of 19% nationwide and 11% in Surrey. That is completely wrong. As a consequence, we have seen soaring crime, which puts our communities at risk. In particular, we have seen soaring knife crime, which is up by 19%.
I am the first to recognise that the problems that we face are not about numbers alone. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) was absolutely right when he talked about the social fabric of our society being increasingly stretched and degraded. That can be seen, for example, in youth services, which seek to divert young people away from crime. The simple truth is that cuts have consequences. If 21,000 police officers are cut, crime will rise, people will die, people will suffer serious injuries, burglaries and thefts, and justice will be denied to them. The Government cannot go on in this state of denial—they cannot go on denying the consequences of their actions. One day, I hope that a Minister—any Minister—will give a straight answer to this straight question: is there a link between falling police numbers and rising crime? Perhaps the Minister would like to address that in his response to this debate.
Every day in my constituency, I see fear stalking the streets. We had powerful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill). In the Perry Common area, we have seen knife crime, gun crime, a shop attacked by people waving 30 machetes, the newsagent Jo Dhesi robbed at knifepoint, and the Castle Vale area beset by the growth in antisocial behaviour. Only last Friday in Slade Road—the Frances Road area—some 100 people turned up at a meeting to pour out their hearts. They talked about the consequences of bad local landlords putting vulnerable people into houses in multiple occupation and of not looking after those people. They also talked about the growth in drug crime and how their area was becoming the centre of county lines operations, leading to the exploitation of young people and to criminals making a fortune out of the most pernicious of crimes.
A woman said to me, “My great-great-great-granddad bought the house that we live in. We have lived in it for successive generations ever since. We loved this area.” Now, she says, people fear to go out at night. A young girl said to me, “Every time I want to go down to Slade Road to get a bus, I have to ask my Mum to come with me because I am afraid to walk down the streets.” The fact that, in Birmingham in 2019, we have such fear stalking our streets should make the Government feel utterly ashamed of themselves.
The Government say, “We have listened.” I say, “Oh, no, you have not.” The simple truth is that not enough money is being invested in our police service and that the burden is increasingly being put on the council tax payer. The increase in grant in the west midlands will just cover pension costs. The increase in the precept will just cover inflationary pressures. Our PCC David Jamieson does an outstanding job standing up for the police service. He says that we need at least 500 police officers. There is no chance of recruiting those badly needed officers to restore peace on our streets. This is a standstill budget in the west midlands that goes nowhere near meeting the demand of the people.
In conclusion, the first duty is to keep our community safe. This Government are letting down the public that we serve. We stand behind the thin blue line. We stand behind those excellent men and women in the police service and the communities that they serve. That is why we say to them that, tonight, we will vote against a measure that goes nowhere near supporting you in the way that you deserve.

Emma Hardy: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey).
I have spoken about the problems of antisocial behaviour in my constituency a number of times before, and I agree with so many right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today, but this debate is about more than just police funding; it is also about the cuts to local government. Youth services have been mentioned frequently and, given my role on the Select Committee on Education, I have often mentioned the problem of exclusions contributing to children being involved in crime.
I fear that we are missing a fundamental point. What does not seem to be mentioned is that the general public are losing faith in our police service. That is more than an issue for just the Government or the Opposition; it should concern every single one of us. I am quite sure that every Member here will know of a constituent who has told them about crime and then followed it with, “I didn’t see the point in telling the police,” or “I tried to phone the police and I couldn’t get through,” or “My friend phoned the police, got through and no one came around, so why should I bother reporting it?” In some of the more wealthy areas of my constituency, residents are even talking about providing their own security services to check their streets. This is starting to sound incredibly worrying, when people no longer have the faith that our public services and our police will keep them safe, to the point where they are talking about funding their own.
My children went to South Africa in the summer, and they told me that everybody there pays for their own security services because they have no faith in the Government. Surely this is not what we want in Britain;  we do not want people to lose their faith in the police service. I say this not because I have any problems with the police service—the police do an incredible job—but because year on year of underfunding and of the police being stretched to a capacity that they cannot possibly sustain mean that crimes are not being dealt with.
When I talk to the police about area where there is additional crime, they say, “We know it’s a problem, Emma, but the people there never report it.” I go and talk to people in certain tower blocks in my constituency, and what they are facing is horrific, but the figures give a really poor impression of where the crime is. If hon. Members were to look at the statistics for my constituency, they might say, “Oh, the crime seems to be worse in the wealthier areas.” No—the people in those areas are more likely to report it. Crime is actually much, much worse in the tower blocks. The people there are having a horrendous time.
What I am saying to the Minister is that this is not just about asking for more money. Yes, we do want some more money, and we need a hell of a lot more than what the Government are offering us, but we also want to know how the Government will restore people’s faith that something is going to happen—that there is going to be an outcome when they make that phone call to the police.
The Home Secretary talked about the problem with mental health services, and I am sure that the Minister is aware of a wonderful police officer who, very sadly, committed suicide because she was not getting the support she needed. I say again to the Minister that this is not a criticism of any of our hard-working officers. I should especially mention Inspector Craig Mattinson, who I spent the day with and who does an incredible job locally. This is about me saying that, unless the Government take the problem of increasing crime more seriously, it will come back to bite each and every one of us. The last thing we want is people taking the law into their own hands, but I fear that that is what too many are being forced to do.

Ruth George: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) for speaking about her experience, and others across this House who have been out with their police and have seen what they are having to go through. I also pay tribute to my local officers. I have done shifts at both Buxton and Glossop police stations and seen the amazing work that the police do.
When I turned up in the morning at Buxton, the officers there had spent the previous night clearing up after a horrific road accident in which three young men lost their lives. It was an absolute tragedy that no one would want to see. Those officers were deeply affected, but they turned up the next morning, did their shift, and helped to deal with the families and with the repercussions of that incident. I absolutely pay tribute to them. Our officers do this because they know that there is no one else. The police are incredibly short-staffed in our rural area, covering almost 900 sq km from two police offices.
We in Derbyshire have had a 26% reduction in our funding, which means £38 million less for our police. Our police and crime commissioners have tried to protect the frontline, so the reduction has translated into 18% fewer officers, but that is still 337 in number. Police stations have been closed in Chapel-en-le-Frith and in New Mills,  leaving huge areas that are covered from a distance and where the police response, even to an emergency, cannot but take a significant amount of time.
This police funding settlement represents £8 million less from the Government than just the costs of pensioning off so many of the 21,000 fewer officers that there now are. In Derbyshire, the police will receive £400,000 less from the Government than they will have in pension fund costs. That means that our hard-pressed council tax payers are having to pay for the cost of police pension fund, which has increased due to getting rid of police. How is that fair or equitable? We have already had council tax rises of 5% last year and 4% this year, plus the police precepts, and more and more people are struggling to pay their council tax. In High Peak alone, 2,700 households have been referred to court in the past 18 months—that is 7% of all households. Increasing council tax is not an easy option. It affects the people who are poorest, who have to pay more as a proportion of their budget and who are also often those most affected by crime.
These people know that our police are suffering too. The police in High Peak are now having to look at closing the custody cells in Buxton. That means that to take arrested people to a custody cell, our police would have to take them an hour’s drive over bleak moorland to Chesterfield or over the county border into Manchester, leaving our thin blue line even thinner than before. There has been a 43% rise in violent crime in Derbyshire, and there have been some absolutely terrible incidents in High Peak. Our officers have to deal with these incidents day in and day out, often working on their own, turning up to the most horrific scenes single-handed and having to wait until they can get cover from other staff who can join them, which can take far too long.
I absolutely pay tribute to our officers across Derbyshire and to the police staff who do the very best they can to deal with the rising levels of violent crime, murders and suicides. There are mental health incidents that take them hours to deal with, when they take people into hospital and have to wait for mental health services to assist. They go above and beyond the call of duty, day in and day out. No wonder it is more difficult to recruit to our police.
The Government should stop taking our police for granted. They should start by funding them properly and helping them to deal with crime. That is what people across the country want, and it is what I hope the Minister will respond with today.

Louise Haigh: This has been a fantastic debate with moving contributions from Members in all parts of the House. However, given that the Government announced this funding settlement with such fanfare and as if it was such good news, it is quite perplexing that only five Conservative Members have spoken on its behalf—all of them, as the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) put it, with mixed feelings. They all referenced the Government’s failure to revise the funding formula as a cause for concern for their own force areas. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) said that it was not a long-term approach. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax)  said that without more Government funding we will continue to lose officers, which is unacceptable both to him and to his constituents. They all said that to keep asking for more council tax was not a sustainable way forward. Those are hardly ringing endorsements from those sitting behind the Home Secretary.
On the other hand, we have heard impassioned speeches from Labour Members on exactly why we will be voting against this completely inadequate settlement today. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) said, cuts have consequences. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), as Merseyside MPs, spoke about losing 1,000 officers and 200 PCSOs, which has undoubtedly had an impact on rising crime.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) spoke about the shocking documentary showing that only 10 police officers were available for the entire town on a given night, which seemed like an open advert to criminals and left local people feeling under threat and much less likely to report crime.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) spoke about the consequences of his force’s decision to abolish all PCSOs, leading to the inevitable downgrading of staff and creeping privatisation, with people on zero-hours contracts now covering crime scenes.
My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) spoke about how fewer people are reporting crimes at all and about reported violent crimes not being recorded, despite the Home Secretary saying earlier that increasing crime is a result of better recording. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle said that the very legitimacy of policing is at threat, as people are losing faith in the police.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) spoke about the loss of thousands of officers and staff in Wales, cushioned only by the intervention of the Welsh Labour Government, who, faced with the same budgetary choices as the UK Government, have recognised the importance of community policing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) said that Cleveland police force shows the clear inequality that exists and the lack of needs-based resourcing. Despite having the fourth highest crime rate in the country, it will receive the lowest rise out of this settlement. As she said, this is a completely regressive settlement that fails her constituents and those of many Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) spoke about the loss of community policing, which means the loss not just of officers embedded in communities but of their crucial intelligence gathering and, even more crucially, the trust in the police that community policing brings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) described a horrific litany of violent offences in the west midlands and the horrendous inability of West Midlands police to respond to 999 calls, all of which is exacerbated by this settlement and all previous settlements delivering less to West Midlands police than to the vast majority of other forces.
The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) is right that the vote tonight is on the Home Office’s police grant, which equates to a  real-terms cut. That is why we will be voting against it, and we will be pleased to see the Lib Dems in the Lobby with us.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) spoke about the wider demands on the police from austerity and, in particular, mental health. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) described a huge rise in all types of crime, yet the settlement she is being asked to vote for could hardly be less adequate for the challenges faced in West Yorkshire, not least child sexual exploitation.
My hon. Friends the Members for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who are steadfast supporters of and consistent campaigners for the police, spoke of the prevalence of violent crime and burglaries in their constituencies—constituencies left less safe by this Government. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George) spoke movingly of the impact on officers of the job we ask them to do day in, day out, despite cutting their numbers and their pay.
There is no precedent in post-war history for a Government undermining the police in the way that this Government have. Never, since records began, has police-recorded violent crime been as high as it is today. Never has knife crime been as high as it is today. Arrests have halved in a decade. Unsolved crimes stand at more than 2 million, and 93% of domestic violence offences go unprosecuted. That is the shameful legacy of this Government, and they remain the only people in this country who continue to deny the link between violent crime and falling officer numbers. Today’s settlement has to stand in that context and in the context of eight consecutive years of real-terms reductions in central Government funding.
It is hardly something to boast about that this is the biggest rise since 2010, when this Government have cut the police every year since 2010. It is staggering that for the ninth consecutive year, we are being asked to vote for a reduction in central Government funding. The £161 million in the central Government grant and the pension grant combined do not meet the additional £311 million cost this year of Government-imposed changes to pension contributions. That means that 31 out of the 43 forces will lose out this year in not only real terms but cash terms. In real terms, almost every single police force will. Barry Coppinger, the PCC in Cleveland—one of the poorest-funded police forces in the country—estimates that he will see his real-terms funding fall by £2.1 million as a result of this settlement. When the Policing Minister promised the House during the settlement statement:
“Every police and crime commissioner will have their Government grant funding protected in real terms,”—[Official Report, 13 December 2018; Vol. 651, c. 432.]
did he somehow inadvertently mislead the House?
As my hon. Friends have said, this Government are giving with one hand and taking with the other, but we should not be surprised, because they have form. Since 2015 they have promised to protect police funding, yet we have seen police numbers fall by 5,900. The truth, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that when it comes to police funding you cannot believe a word they say.
Who is paying the price for these Tory failures to fund the police? This settlement asks hard-pressed local tax payers to bear that burden once again. Using council  tax to pay for increased funding for the police is perverse and unfair. It fails to meet need and it fails to meet demand, especially alongside the continued failure to reform the funding formula and the continued cuts to the Home Office grant. Merseyside will raise almost the same as rural North Yorkshire, despite having double the population and triple the level of violent crime. West Yorkshire has double the population and four times the level of violent crime of Surrey, yet it will be able to raise only about the same amount of funding this year.
What exactly was the point in the Policing Minister going from force to force to assess demand if he then fails to produce a funding settlement for forces that matches that demand? Nobody, as my hon. Friends have said, could think that an appropriate way to assess how much a police force needs is how big the houses are in that area. How can the Minister justify a postcode lottery that means the communities already seeing higher crime will receive so much less funding?
This Government have an abominable record on law and order, and no political will to redress it. By passing the burden of their political failure on to local taxpayers, they are storing up problems for the future, which will see the forces with the largest increases in crime, especially violent crime, hit time and again. The public know this Government have failed and will continue to fail in their first and most solemn duty, to keep their citizens safe, and today’s settlement confirms that failure once again.

Nick Hurd: During this vigorous debate, I have clung to the message from Her Majesty the Queen about the need, in these divided times, to try to seek the common ground. That is relevant because when the Home Secretary and I spoke recently with a group of senior police leaders, billed as the leaders of tomorrow, one of the questions from the floor was, “Do you see common ground between the political parties about the future of policing?” The question was asked hoping for the answer yes. Listening to this debate, I asked myself what that police officer, who may end up leading a force, would have thought of this debate if she had had the time to watch it, which of course she does not.
She would have heard a common voice across the House with MPs going out of their way to express their personal admiration and thanks to their forces. That was the case with my hon. Friends the Members for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) and for South Dorset (Richard Drax), the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), the hon. Members for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and for Redcar (Anna Turley), the right hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) and for North Durham (Mr Jones), and the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George).
She would have heard a recognition across the House of changing demand on the police, with cyber-crime, county lines, child sexual exploitation and the critical issue of the increasing amount of time that our police officers are spending with people in crisis and suffering from mental health problems. Again, that was recognised  by Members from across the House. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), my hon. Friends the Members for Nuneaton and for South Dorset, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill), my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness and the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) all talked about that.
She would have heard a determination across the House to bear down on this horrendous increase in knife crime. The right hon. Member for Knowsley and the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) again did the House a service by reminding us that beneath the statistics are terrible human stories of shattered families. The hon. Members for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) reminded us that this is not a London issue but a national challenge.
She would also have heard a recognition from across the House that a lot needs fixing in the CSR in how funding is allocated across the police system. We heard that from MPs from many different places across the country, such as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire, the right hon. Members for North Durham and for Knowsley, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) in relation to Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, my hon. Friends the Members for Nuneaton, for Waveney, for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) from a sedentary position, and for Boston and Skegness, the hon. Members for Newport East and for Batley and Spen, and most of the west midlands MPs.
That is where the common ground lies. Of course, there are also divisions. There are irreconcilable divisions on decisions taken in 2010 in response to the crisis in the public finances.

Vicky Ford: Will my right hon. Friend add Essex police to the list of those that need praise? A new cohort of Essex police officers will be passing out on Friday. They are in addition to the 150 new officers last year, and are part of the 240 new officers planned for this year, funded proudly by Essex people thanks to the precept.

Nick Hurd: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I congratulate—

Kevan Jones: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have had a good debate, but it was undersubscribed on the Conservative Benches. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), who stormed off early in the debate when her intervention was not taken and has not been present, to use an intervention to make a mini speech?

Rosie Winterton: Nothing disorderly has occurred. The right hon. Gentleman has put on the record his concerns about people not being present for the debate and then intervening.

Nick Hurd: Divisions do exist. Labour is desperate to assert its narrative that cuts have consequences. On this side of the House, we know that the cuts were the consequence of a Labour Government yet again running out of public money so that tough decisions had to  be taken. There is an artificial debate about the balance between the contribution from central and local taxpayers. If we want more money in policing, we have to pay, and the hypocrisy of this—from a Labour party that doubled council tax when it was in power—is overwhelming.
The common ground is that Members on both sides of the House recognise the increased pressure on the police and want to provide additional support to them. That is exactly what the settlement does.

George Howarth: The Minister offers us the tempting prospect of finding common ground, but does he not realise that the common ground he asks us to step on to is actually sinking sand?

Nick Hurd: As I have said, I am more than happy to meet the Merseyside MPs, but this settlement is set up to increase public investment in our police service by up to £970 million. If it is voted through tonight, it means that we will invest more than £2 billion more next year than we did three years ago. How that can be presented as a cut is beyond me. What the public will note is that the Labour party has fought us every step of the way—it voted against the settlement last year and it intends to vote against it tonight. Labour is apparently blind to the fact that while we are committing to almost £2 billion of investment in the police service next year, its commitment is for £780 million over the life of this Parliament.

Jack Dromey: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Hurd: I am not going to give way.
I am delighted that police and crime commissioners up and down the country intend to use the settlement to do what the public want, which is to recruit additional police officers—300 more in London, 320 more in Manchester, 160 more in Bedfordshire, 58 more in Derbyshire, 270 more in Sussex, and 132 more in Yorkshire. Across the system, more than 2,500 more police officers are planned, plus 479 staff. That is the result of the police settlement that the Labour party intends to vote against.

Ed Vaizey: Thank you for establishing the ground rules, Madam Deputy Speaker, and allowing Members to speak, against the wishes of the Opposition. May I use this opportunity to wish Francis Habgood, the excellent chief constable of Thames Valley, a happy retirement next month?
Does the Minister agree that, while we always want more funding, smarter procurement can help? The Oxfordshire fire service saved £1 million, but we have a more efficient fire service through tendering and procuring fire engines with other authorities.

Nick Hurd: I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend, and of course the Labour party has no interest in how our money is spent. After eight years of austerity, we can still find agreement with the police to fund—

Kevan Jones: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Rosie Winterton: It had better be good. It is not fair not to let the Minister respond.

Kevan Jones: It is good. We have another example of a Member who has not been present for the debate. He is being lazy and could not be bothered to turn up—

Rosie Winterton: Sit down. Nothing disorderly has happened and the Minister has the right to respond.

Nick Hurd: This settlement demonstrates our recognition that our police system needs additional support. We have one of the best police systems in the world and we are determined to keep it that way. The settlement provides the opportunity to increase public investment by almost £1 billion. It allows PCCs to manage the cost pressures on them, which are real, and to recruit local police officers to bear down on local crime. It also provides additional money for national priorities, such as counter-terrorism and serious organised crime, which costs this country £37 billion a year and on which the Labour party is absolutely silent.
The settlement is another stepping stone—I have been candid on this—on the journey towards the comprehensive spending review and the opportunity to structure long-term funding for the police and to address the issue of fair funding, which exercises minds across the House. The Home Secretary has made it clear that police funding is his priority. We all want to register our thanks to the police, but they need more than that—they need our support. That is exactly what the settlement provides. I commend it to the House.
Question put.
The House proceeded to a Division.

Rosie Winterton: I remind the House that this motion is subject to double-majority voting: of the whole House and of Members representing constituencies in England and Wales.
The House divided:
Ayes 310289, Noes 254242.

The House having divided: Ayes 310, Noes 254.
Votes cast by Members for constituencies in England and Wales: Ayes 289, Noes 242.
Question accordingly agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

Rosie Winterton: We come now to the three motions on local government finance, which will be debated together. All three motions are subject to double-majority voting: voting by the whole House, and voting by those representing constituents in England.

James Brokenshire: I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2019–20 (HC 1916), which was laid before this House on 29 January, be approved.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
That the Report on Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Alternative Notional Amounts) (England) 2019-20 (HC 1917), which was laid before this House on 29 January, be approved.
That the Report on Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) 2019–20 (HC 1918), which was laid before this House on 29 January, be approved.

James Brokenshire: Strong, vibrant, resilient communities are, more than ever, key to unlocking a brighter future for our country. We must therefore celebrate them and help them to succeed, and, in turn, support councils and the many people who serve them every day in delivering essential services and changing lives. I hold those dedicated public servants in the highest regard and have faith in them to rise to the challenges that lie ahead, seeing their people and places flourish with no one left behind. To achieve that, they must have the necessary tools and resources to do their job and I am determined to ensure that they get them. That was why I published the provisional settlement on funding for local authorities in England late last year and invited contributions as part of our formal consultation on that.
We received around 170 responses and I am grateful to those who engaged so constructively with me and my Ministers. My particular thanks throughout the process go to the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), for all his work and immense efforts.
That important work has helped to shape the final settlement, which recognises the pressures that councils face and acknowledges their impressive efforts to drive efficiencies and strengthen our public finances. That paves the way for more confident, self-sufficient and reinvigorated local government.
I am pleased to confirm on behalf of the Government that, importantly, core spending power is forecast to increase from £45.1 billion in 2018-19 to £46.4 billion in 2019-20. That amounts to a cash increase of 2.8% and a real-terms increase in resources available to local authorities, which is good news for the many communities that will benefit.

Mike Amesbury: Does the Secretary of State recognise that children’s services are now at crisis point and that there will be a £2 billion—£2 billion! —shortfall by 2020?

James Brokenshire: We are spending around £1 billion more than at the start of this Parliament. Some £84 million is added into the settlement to ensure that we drive quality and support in the knowledge that, yes, there are pressures. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the additional £410 million that has been committed to children’s and adult social care in response to the good work that is going on and some of the pressures.

Bob Seely: I welcome the £2.7 million extra for the Isle of Wight. More than that, I am delighted that, for the first time ever, the fair funding review mentions English islands and refers to the Isle of Wight by name as somewhere that requires extra study to analyse additional costs. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that results in concrete extra support for English islands and the Isle of Wight in recognition of the needs of islands?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend is a fine champion of the interests of the Isle of Wight and I commend him for his work. He has made representations to the Local Government Minister and seen a recognition that different communities are affected in different ways as we look at the review of relative needs and resources. Obviously, we will listen carefully to representations we receive from hon. Members of all parties as we move forward with the review.

Stephen Lloyd: The Secretary of State talks about the additional cash for local authorities. I spoke to a colleague who was at East Sussex County Council’s budget meeting today, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the situation is a catastrophe. The situation with core funding means that meals on wheels are being cut. Unless additional money comes next year, services for vulnerable children will be savaged. Will the Secretary of State today commit to giving East Sussex County Council fairer funding? Even though this is a Tory-led county, the council is on its knees. It needs the money urgently.

James Brokenshire: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that East Sussex is part of the business rates pilots and gets the benefits that attach to those involved in that process through the additional resources that are garnered from it. Councils across the south-east will get an extra £226 million in their core spend in the settlement if the House approves it today, which will mean around £7.1 billion of funding.

Ed Vaizey: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Ian Hudspeth and Oxfordshire County Council on the excellent way in which they have managed their resources? Does he agree that capital funding is equally important? I hope that he will look kindly on our housing infrastructure funding bid, because that funding would provide vital infrastructure for Didcot in my constituency, which is one of the economic engines of the United Kingdom.

James Brokenshire: I pay tribute to Oxfordshire and to all councils that have been working hard to provide services for their local communities. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will recognise the increase of about £16.9 million that will come through the settlement  for Oxfordshire. I am looking carefully at the housing infrastructure bids in respect of Didcot and elsewhere, and I note his lobbying in that regard.

Several hon. Members: rose—

James Brokenshire: I will take one more intervention and then I will seek to make some progress.

Gareth Thomas: Harrow Council is not unique in having had most of its revenue support grant axed over the past seven years. What conversations is the Secretary of State having with the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that we can, as we hope, see a significant increase in that revenue support grant in the comprehensive spending review?

James Brokenshire: I am looking carefully at sustainability and issues relating to local government finance more broadly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the change that is happening in the structure of local government finance and the move away from revenue support to the retention of business rates. In London, we have a 75% business rate retention pilot. We want to move away from the merry-go-round of money being collected so that it comes into central Government and then going back by way of a grant. We want to simplify the process.

Several hon. Members: rose—

James Brokenshire: I will take one final intervention, but then I will make some progress, because I know that a lot of Members want to speak and I am conscious that interventions will eat into their time.

Alberto Costa: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the measures he is outlining will help Leicestershire County Council, which is involved in the business rate retention pilot scheme, as well as Harborough District Council and Blaby District Council? Those three local authorities are led by excellent Conservative administrations.

James Brokenshire: I commend the Conservative authorities in my hon. Friend’s area for their work, and I commend him for his recognition of the benefit that accrues from the business rate retention pilots and of how funding from the growth in business rates can be invested into local services. That is why we want to move to this new system throughout the next financial year.
These proposals will amount to a real-terms increase, but I know that we face a number of challenges. Among the most serious is the responsibility that councils—and, indeed, all of us—have towards the most vulnerable in our society. It is therefore right that out of the more than £1 billion of extra funding committed at last year’s Budget, £650 million will go towards adult and children’s social care in 2019-20. This will help to meet the pressures resulting from an ageing population. Some £240 million of that amount has been allocated to ease pressures on the NHS, and that is on top of the £240 million announced in October to address current winter pressures. The remaining £410 million can be spent on either adult or children’s social care and, where necessary, to take pressure off the NHS. I know that local authorities will value that flexibility greatly.
We are investing a further £84 million over the next five years to expand three of our most successful children’s social care innovation programme projects in up to 20 local authorities to keep more children at home safely. We are supporting local authorities to make the best use of available resources and to increase efficiency, as well as to innovate and improve the way in which they deliver services. Better integration of the health and care systems with other local services is essential, particularly in regard to social care. The long-term NHS plan, with its welcome shift from acute to community healthcare services, together with the upcoming social care Green Paper, will make a big difference.

Daniel Poulter: I welcome the extra funding that is going into social care, notwithstanding reductions over the past several years. Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that that money is not just pumped into the acute sector? Integration far too often seems to mean bailing out hospitals that are struggling because of increased demand from an ageing population and people with multiple co-morbidities, so will he ensure that more of that money is directed into preventive care in the community? This would take pressure off the NHS and keep people well and properly supported in their own homes.

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend will recognise the work of the better care fund and some of the positives outcomes that it has driven for acute hospitals and social care, such as preventing people from having to go to hospital, as he highlights. Ensuring that the social care system works effectively to deal with some of the pressures is a core component of the NHS long-term plan.

Several hon. Members: rose—

James Brokenshire: I will give way to the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and then take a couple more interventions.

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. A new study by the Centre for Cities shows that Slough has been the hardest-hit town in the south-east. In fact, it has been the 10th worst hit nationally by this Government’s austerity measures. Slough’s local government spending has been cut by 23% since 2009-10, while the UK average figure is 14%. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is unfair to mete out the deepest cuts in those areas that are most affected by issues such as childhood obesity, childhood poverty and homelessness?

James Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman will recognise the need for us to look carefully at relative needs and resources. I encourage him to engage constructively and positively with our review so that we get the right formula to ensure that need is recognised. He makes an important point, but we are putting more funding into the system, and I hope that he will recognise the benefit.

Anna Soubry: Nottinghamshire County Council, which is run by an exceptional Conservative group, has had its funding cut by 52% since 2013—from £238 million to £118 million for 2019-20. Despite its  excellent budget management and real-terms cuts to services, the council’s deficit is projected to be £34.1 million. I say to my right hon. Friend, who is a very good Secretary of State, that the cuts have been going on for too long, and county councils such as Nottinghamshire will now have to cut through the muscle and into the bone. They simply need more money. On that basis, I will be abstaining this evening.

James Brokenshire: I pay tribute to the work that councils such as Nottinghamshire have done over the past few years in making hard calls and difficult decisions as a consequence of the financial position that the Government have had to deal with. I encourage my right hon. Friend to look at core spending power, which combines all sources of local government income, because she will see that Nottinghamshire will have an additional £16.3 million between 2018-19 and 2019-20, which is an increase of 3.2%.

Tim Loughton: I am terribly grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. West Sussex is thankful for the additional money and for the business rates retention pilots, but the truth is that we have had to make savings of £200 million over the past eight years and face a gross gap of £145 million over the next four years. We have one of the oldest populations in the country, with the consequent social care requirements, and we are in the bottom decile for schools funding. In addition to all that, we have “Think Family”—one of the best troubled families programmes—and it would be a catastrophe if its funding were not renewed next year, because it offers really good preventive early intervention work, the effects of which are great and save money later on.

James Brokenshire: I am a strong supporter in the troubled families programme, and I have been a strong believer in preventive work for young people, including through family units, for many years. My hon. Friend makes an important point based on his experience about the value of such services and interventions. I assure him that I will continue to focus on that as we look to the months ahead and the spending review.

Several hon. Members: rose—

James Brokenshire: I need to make some progress due to the time available for this debate.
To do more, it is crucial that we listen and respond to what local authorities are telling us, not just on the NHS and social care, but on all issues. It is in that spirit that we are increasing the rural services delivery grant by £16 million in 2019-20 to maintain it at last year’s level. In addition, after consulting widely, we have decided directly to eliminate negative revenue support grant—where changes in revenue support grant have led to a downward adjustment of some local authorities’ business rates top-up or tariff—in 2019-20. I recognise the strength of feeling about that, and I believe this is the most straight- forward and cost-effective approach for the next year.
We also want to continue rewarding councils for delivering the homes we need. I therefore confirm that the new homes bonus baseline threshold will be maintained, at a cost of £18 million. The message about councils wanting certainty to help them plan also came across  loud and clear in the consultation. To that end I can confirm that, in 2019-20, local authorities, with the exception of police and crime commissioners, will retain the same package of council tax referendum limits as in 2018-19. This will protect local taxpayers from excessive increases, in line with our manifesto commitment.
Every council has the freedom to set higher council taxes if it wishes, provided it gains the consent of local people in a referendum. I am also providing an additional 2% council tax flexibility to Northamptonshire County Council to assist with improvements to council governance and services after its serious issues.
With the end of the current multi-year deal in sight, it is clear that we need to take a longer view on how we fund councils as we move to a stronger, sustainable, smarter system of local government. Preparations this year for increased business rates retention, a new approach to distributing funding between local authorities and the upcoming spending review will be pivotal to this, as will the important work under way with local authorities and the wider sector to better understand service costs and pressures. Again, we are listening and responding.
For years, councils have asked for more control of the money they raise, and we are giving it to them through our plans to increase business rates retention to 75% from 2020, in the process providing local authorities with powerful incentives to grow their economies. Local authorities estimate they will retain around £2.4 billion in business rates growth in 2018-19 under the current system, a significant revenue stream, on top of the core settlement funding I am outlining today.
The pilots testing increased business rates retention have, unsurprisingly, proved very popular, and I am delighted there will be 15 new pilots for 2019-20 covering 122 local authorities. We will also be piloting 75% business rate retention in London and continuing our existing pilots in devolution deal areas.

Henry Smith: I thank the Secretary of State for including West Sussex in the business rates retention scheme and for the 4.2% increase the county council is getting. Crawley Borough Council has reserves of over £21 million. What more can be done to make sure that councils use such large reserves more efficiently?

James Brokenshire: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he has championed his local area. As a former local government leader, he has shown what can be delivered through local authorities, and I commend him for that.
My hon. Friend highlights the increased spend that West Sussex will gain as a consequence of the settlement before the House, but obviously it is for local authorities to work smartly and thoughtfully in relation to their retained reserves. There is a clear need for reserves, which he will understand, but he rightly underlines the need to use those funds sustainably, appropriately and effectively.

Clive Betts: The Secretary of State rapidly skipped over the funding review. Will he confirm that the consultation proposed in December to take deprivation out of the foundation  element of the funding review? That would transfer money from deprived areas to non-deprived areas. Is that fair?

James Brokenshire: Obviously we will look at all the representations that continue to be made during the review of relative needs and resources, but our analysis in the review demonstrates that, overall, population is by far the most important cost driver for both the upper-tier and lower-tier foundation formulae. Although in aggregate terms deprivation is not shown to be a major cost driver for the services included in the foundation formulae, I am of the view that relative levels of deprivation remain an important cost driver for some specific service areas such as social care. I welcome views as part of the current consultation, and I am sure the Select Committee will continue to focus on this important work.

Kevin Hollinrake: Can it be right that prior to the new fairer funding formula central Government grants for inner London were £437 per person per year, whereas the grants for county areas were £153 per person per year? Do we not simply need a fairer funding formula?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend makes the case clearly for undertaking this review and looking at this properly. We need to look at the starting point and take the approach he highlights to ensure that fair distribution can be made.

Several hon. Members: rose—

James Brokenshire: I will give way one last time but then I really must conclude.

John Hayes: While mindful of the intervention from the Chairman of the Select Committee—of course it is right that we take into account deprivation—let me say that a range of other factors are involved. Rurality and sparsity in a county such as Lincolnshire make it hard to deliver public services, as the Secretary of State will know. He has mentioned rurality, so when he looks at the funding formula, while being mindful of that earlier intervention, will he look at that matter once again?

James Brokenshire: My right hon. Friend makes an important point about rurality, the impact it can have and the cost drivers it can generate. I assure him that we will be analysing it closely as the work continues.

Several hon. Members: rose—

James Brokenshire: I must make some progress.
I know that local authorities were also pleased to hear that we plan to distribute £180 million of surplus in the business rates retention levy account in 2018-19, which was generated by strong growth in business rates income, to every authority in England, based on need. But as well as more control, councils want and need to see a clearer link between the allocation of resources and local circumstances.

Jim Cunningham: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have tried two or three times to draw the Secretary of State’s  attention to serious cuts in Coventry, and the people of Coventry want to know what the benefits are in relation to the £1 billion that he just announced—

Rosie Winterton: Order. The Secretary of State has the right to take as many or as few interventions as he wishes. He is aware that there is pressure on time. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has put in to speak, but he really does have to wait until the Secretary of State wants to give way. I do not like points of order getting in the way of speeches, because I do not think it is fair on others who are waiting to speak.

James Brokenshire: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that a number of Members wish to speak this afternoon. I hope I have been generous in taking interventions, but I am conscious of allowing sufficient time for right hon. and hon. Members to make their points for their individual communities. I did not mean any disrespect to the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), as I know he takes these issues extremely seriously. It was on that basis that I sought to be generous but I need to make progress now.
As well as more control, councils want and need to see a clearer link between the allocation of resources and local circumstances. That is why we are working with them to overhaul a funding formula that is currently far too complicated and badly out of date. We need to look at this afresh and do away with anomalies such as double weighting for urban roads compared with rural roads, which the Labour party was far too comfortable imposing. Let us not forget that local people paid the price for Labour: under the last Labour Government the average band D council tax bill went up by a staggering 109% between 1997 and 2010, costing families, on average, an extra £751 a year. Given that track record, one would think that the Opposition might have learned a lesson or two about excessive tax rises, but no. Labour’s manifesto set out plans for a new land tax on family homes, which would punish those with gardens. Labour’s garden tax would send tax bills soaring and house prices plummeting, and would pressure families to build over their back gardens. By contrast, our approach has been informed by a strong consensus on the need for fairness, for local authorities and for local taxpayers. It is now critical that everyone takes a pragmatic approach, recognising the trade-offs that are necessary to ensure we get this right and deliver a new and fair formula on time, as agreed.
This important work—on the funding formula and on increased business rates retention—reboots our system of local government, creating the space for communities to re-imagine what they can do and can be in the 21st century, and helps to renew the bonds with communities. This is of the utmost importance as we strive to ensure every part of our society and country benefits from a modern, outward-looking Britain after Brexit. No one is better placed to deliver on that than local authorities. That is why last week I released £56.5 million, to be used across this year and next, to help councils to prepare for EU exit, and it is why we are backing them to deliver every day through this settlement and the extra funding announced in the Budget. In doing so, we are delivering on what they have asked for: a real-terms increase in spending in 2019-20;  support for the vulnerable; a boost for housing, with the removal of the Government cap on how much councils can borrow to build, for quality public services and local economic growth; and help for our high streets. The Labour party may turn its face against this, but it is no less than our councils and communities deserve. I commend the settlement to the House.

Andrew Gwynne: We expected better from this Secretary of State and wanted to see better from this Government. I thank our dedicated council staff and our local councillors of all political persuasions and none, because, frankly, over the past nine years they have all been hung out to dry by successive Secretaries of State.
This is an Alice “Through the Looking-Glass” settlement. Ministers present a cut as an increase, but back in the real world, what we saw in the provisional settlement, which was reaffirmed last week in the Secretary of State’s written ministerial statement to the House, is that there is no new money, no new ideas and no recognition of the dire situation facing councils. Between Christmas and last week the Secretary of State had the chance to change tack, but he has just confirmed to the House that the settlement is identical to the provisional settlement that failed so miserably before Christmas.
Local government is at the heart of our local communities. It looks after the most vulnerable in society and makes our local green spaces cleaner and safer, but under this Conservative Government we have seen unprecedented levels of cuts to our local councils. The fact is simple: between 2010 and 2020, local government in England will have lost more than 60p in every £1 that the Government provide to our communities for services.

Karen Buck: We just had a debate on the police settlement grant. Does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities are at the forefront of prevention work, so it is particularly tragic that my local authority, Westminster, has removed all funding from youth services, after-school services and holiday schemes and, like authorities all over the country, lost at least a third of early-intervention funding?

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fact is that councils are the lynchpin of the provision of proper, cohesive, joined-up services with other agencies, whether housing associations, the police, leisure services or youth services. It is crucial that our councils and councillors are given the resources they need so that we do not cost-shunt from one area of the public sector on to the others. It is self-defeating to cut youth services, early intervention and police budgets at the same time, because we end up in the situation my hon. Friend describes.

Jim Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I was rather surprised that the Secretary of State did not give way to me; he is usually quite generous, so I am disappointed.
More importantly, it is vital to the people of Coventry that we represent them. Their budgets—if I can put it that way—through the city council have been cut by well over 50%. That has affected libraries, children’s services, care in the community—I could give a litany. It has  been a general attack on public services, whether we talk about local authorities, the health service or other services. It is vital that we know the breakdown of the £1 billion pounds that the Secretary of State just announced—I noticed that he tried to avoid that. My hon. Friend is right that central Government are shifting expenditure on to the local council tax payer, rather than facing up to their own responsibilities.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend, who is a doughty champion of the people of the city of Coventry, is absolutely right. What we have seen today from this Secretary of State is smoke and mirrors. He can talk about a spending power increase across local government, but that is predicated on every English local authority increasing council tax by the maximum level possible—an eye-watering, inflation-busting increase. We know that not every local authority can raise sufficient money by council tax alone, which is the reason behind the revenue support grant. A 50% cut to the revenue support grant of my hon. Friend’s city of Coventry is a big cut by monetary standards. Coventry’s council tax base does not allow the city council to raise anything like enough money to plug that gap.

Kevin Hollinrake: The hon. Gentleman talks about the revenue support grant. How can it be right that a person in London gets £437 per year allocated to them from the central Government grant, a person in a metropolitan borough £319, and a person in a county £153? How can that be fair or right?

Andrew Gwynne: I will answer that: a third of the services are more expensive to deliver in urban areas. That is the fact. It is in the Government’s own report that was commissioned for the then Department for Communities and Local Government. Some Tories do not get the reality of this, but I imagine that those who represent urban areas probably—silently—do. The fact is that revenue support grant is there because Governments of all political persuasions recognise that not every area is the same. The baseline is not the same. In some urban areas, the council tax base is low.

Kevin Hollinrake: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Gwynne: No, I am answering the hon. Gentleman, if he will do me the courtesy of listening.
Every local area has a different council tax base. I hazard a guess—I do not have the facts in front of me —that a 1% increase in council tax for Tameside Council, which I partly represent, will raise significantly less than a 1% increase in his area’s council tax, but the needs of Tameside are as great, if not greater, than some of the needs of his constituents.

Daniel Kawczynski: rose—

Andrew Gwynne: I will give way later if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
According to the Local Government Association, the change in the revenue support grant has left local services today to face a huge funding gap of £3.2 billion. This is  the Tory-led Local Government Association, so I hope that Tweedledum and Tweedledee sitting opposite will listen to this. It includes a £1.5 billion gap in adult social care funding, a £1.1 billion gap in children’s services, a £113 million gap in tackling homelessness and a £531 million gap in public health. By 2025, the gap facing local councils will rise to £7.8 billion, which is something that should shame us all.

Mike Hill: My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. On the issue of child poverty, we have high debt rates and nine food banks in Hartlepool. How can my local authority cope with a £6 million funding shortfall and 40% departmental cuts right across the patch?

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is what Government Members really need to get about some of the authorities that we represent—although, to be fair, a number of Conservative Members represent authorities with very similar deprivation statistics to those represented by my hon. Friends.
The fact is that if we want to tackle health inequalities, narrow the gap between the richest and the poorest, and actually do the things that the Conservative Prime Minister said were her main aim and ambition on the first day that she took office, we have to ensure that local authorities have the resources they need.

Ian Mearns: When the Conservatives were in government in the early ’90s and they had to consign the community charge to the dustbin of history, they brought in the council tax and everyone breathed a sigh of relief. The trouble with the council tax is that it depends on there being a median band D council tax raising power in every part of the country. Just under 70% of the properties in my area are in band A; we cannot raise the revenue locally, so by taking away our revenue support grant, the Government are really crippling councils like mine in Gateshead.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Scandalously, council tax now equates to 7% of the income of a low-income family, compared with just 1% for a higher income family. That is unfair. Some people say that we can merely reform the council tax by adding extra bands to the end. Let me tell my hon. Friend—I imagine his area is very similar to mine—that we can add as many extra bands on the end as we like, but it will not raise a single penny more for my council because we do not have houses that would fall into those bands.

Daniel Kawczynski: The hon. Gentleman has spoken a great deal about pressures on urban areas, but in my constituency in rural Shropshire there are additional costs involved in providing services across a very large, remote, rural area, and we have a lot more senior citizens than the national average. Is he saying that, under a future Labour Government, there will be more money for urban areas rather than rural ones?

Andrew Gwynne: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has fallen into the trap that has been set by his own Ministers. We should not be talking about urban versus rural, or cities versus towns and villages. What is important is not how we cut an ever-diminishing cake differently,  which is the approach of Ministers; we need to grow the cake. Politics is a question of priorities and Labour has set out very clearly how we would put more money into local public services, meaning more money for the hon. Gentleman’s council as well as more money for mine.

Ruth George: I thank my hon. Friend for making the excellent point that this is not a dichotomy between rural areas, such as that which I represent, and urban areas. We cannot be robbing one area to give to another. The fact that this Government have cut and cut and cut means that costs are increasing in counties such as my county of Derbyshire. Local authorities have overspends on adult care purchased services and on children’s services because they have been cutting social services and early help. That is why councils are struggling all over the country.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she is also right that it should not be about urban versus rural, but that is what the Government have made the situation with their approach to local government finance over the last nine years—this perverse reverse redistribution. The facts speak for themselves, and they should shame each and every one of us in this House.
We have seen a shift away from spending based on need and deprivation. The Secretary of State can shake his head, but nine out of the 10 areas seeing the biggest cuts to spending power per household, in pounds sterling, are all Labour controlled. Between 2010 and 2019, Hackney has seen a spending power cut of £1,406 per household, Newham a cut of £1,302 per household, Tower Hamlets a cut of £1,264 per household, and Knowsley a cut of £1,057.06 per household. It is worth noting that Knowsley is the second most deprived area in the country and has received the fourth biggest cut of any council. Nine of the 10 most deprived councils in the country have seen cuts of almost three times the national average. Blackpool, the most deprived area in England, has seen a spending power cut of £680 per household. Then there is Knowsley, followed by Hull, with a cut of £710; Liverpool, with a cut of £924; and Manchester, the fifth most deprived area, with a cut of £902 per household.

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi: My hon. Friend is making a most powerful argument. Local authorities like Slough are currently housing 79,000 homeless families in temporary accommodation, including more than 120,000 children. Last year, there was the largest annual increase in children in care since 2010, and councils are now starting 500 child protection investigations every day. Does he not agree that that is a diabolical situation resulting from these harsh ideological cuts?

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to his council for all the hard work that it is doing in very difficult circumstances. Cuts do have consequences, and cuts that are outside the control of the local authority are now presenting themselves as spending problems for town and county halls across England. That is why we are so angry about what this Government are doing.

Kevin Hollinrake: rose—

Bob Blackman: rose—

Andrew Gwynne: I will give way in a little while.
I have talked about the shift of resources out of some of the most deprived communities in England. Yet contrast that with the councils that have seen the smallest cuts in cash terms—or in some cases, increases—over the nine years of Tory austerity. Seven out of the 10 areas seeing the smallest cuts to spending power per household are Conservative-controlled councils. That is very clearly what is going on here. Let me give the Secretary of State and his MPs the facts. The Isles of Scilly have seen a £337 per household increase in spending power, Wokingham a £40 per household increase, Horsham a £16 per household increase, Surrey—the council of the Chancellor—a £13.12 increase, Hart a £9 increase, Uttlesford an £8 increase, Stratford-upon-Avon a £7 increase, and Tonbridge and Malling a £4 increase. It is only when we get to places like Maidstone that we start to see spending power cuts over the past nine years —of just £6.78 per household.
Of the councils that are getting increases, not one of them is a Labour council. It is an unfair funding system peddled by a Secretary of State and Government who are recklessly gambling with our communities.

Dennis Skinner: It is even worse than that. This ever diminishing cake has now been subject to the Prime Minister—not the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister—offering bribes to people who are going to—[Interruption.] This is part of the system, and it can affect any area—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. [Interruption.] Order. Mr Skinner. Just one second. We cannot use the word “bribes”.

Dennis Skinner: This will come out of local government—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. One of us has to sit down, and unfortunately I just need to say this. We have to make our point—I totally agree—and you always make a point very well, but we cannot use the word “bribes”.

Dennis Skinner: This money will come out of local government—make no mistake—even though it is a bribe. That is why we on these Benches are not going to take it. We are not going to sully the amount of money going to local authorities that we understand—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Skinner, please.

Dennis Skinner: If you don’t understand, you shouldn’t be in the job.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am sorry that we have got to that level. I said that Members cannot use the word “bribes”, because I do not believe—

Dennis Skinner: That is what it is.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am explaining that that is not the case.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Communities that need help and assistance after nine years of Tory austerity should not be offered help and assistance in return for getting the withdrawal  agreement through this place; they should get it because it is the right thing to do for those communities. He is right to turn down such offers, as he has done.
If the statistics that I have mentioned were not bad enough, at a time when the Government should be reinvesting in our most deprived communities, helping them and lifting people out of poverty, they propose to cut even further. What we see in this perverse reverse redistribution is another cut to the revenue support grant of £1.3 billion, taking money away from the poorest communities in England. Yes, the Government have announced £1 billion of additional spending in the Budget, and they re-announced it in the provisional settlement and today. But the reality is that the way they propose to distribute that additional money, which does not offset the loss of revenue support grant in absolute terms anyway, is unfair.
For example, the Government are changing the way that the pothole money they announced is to be allocated. Tories who represent urban constituencies should be worried about that, because the Government are moving away from the type, width and usage of a road and merely using a simplified formula based on length of road. That is great for a constituency with lots of country lanes that are used by one tractor a day and 16,000 sheep, but try telling the people who live on potholed dual carriageways in urban areas that they are losing funding by the fiddle and sleight of hand that Ministers are adopting.
Children’s services are the biggest single cost pressure facing our local councils. That was one reason why Northamptonshire County Council—it gives me no pleasure to say that it is a Tory council—was the first council to declare bankruptcy not once but twice in the same year. Not only has that caused misery for families and children, but councils have had to squeeze the place-based services that people think they pay their council tax towards to be able to look after children. That is the right thing for councils to do, but the Secretary of State has to understand that £84 million divided by five divided by 20 councils will not resolve the problems facing children’s services in England. Adult social care has a massive £1.5 billion funding gap next year. Where is the Green Paper? It has been delayed and delayed. That can has been kicked so far down the road that it is probably on the country lane with 16,000 sheep.
In closing—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Those on the Government Benches can cheer as much as they like, but they are cheering cuts to the poorest communities. I suspect that many Conservative Members have now forgotten why they came into politics. The Prime Minister was right when she entered Downing Street—it should be about narrowing health inequalities. It should be about caring for those who cannot care for themselves. It should be about dignity in old age and looking after our children. I want, and we on the Opposition side of the House want, to improve the lives of people in every part of the country. We have not forgotten how important it is to deliver for local communities when and where they need it most.
Not a day goes by but people claim that politicians are all alike, that we are all the same and that there is no difference between the lot of us. They need to look at this debate today, and by doing so they will see that  there is a difference between the Secretary of State’s party and ours. Our party—the Labour party—would never hit the most vulnerable like this, and we have a record to prove it. Politicians are not all the same. Some of us remember why and how we got into politics in the first place. A Labour Government will stand up for local communities. After all, Labour councils are leading the way in standing up for the local services that people rely on. A Labour Government will share power with local areas. We need to make sure that they have a Government who will rebuild this country for the many, and not the few.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I say that we have a lot of speakers to get in? I am going to put in a limit of six minutes, but could people use less than six minutes to try to ensure that those later on get the same time?

John Stevenson: Before I make my general comments, may I gently remind the House of the economic mess of 2010 and the financial difficulties that this country was in at that time? Opposition Members seem to forget that.
First, I congratulate the Government on the overall budget increase to local authorities, which I think helps councils to plan for the future and creates some stability for them. We often underestimate the importance of local authorities and the role that they play in providing leadership in their communities, helping to develop localities and, most importantly of all, providing services to their areas. I also welcome the Government’s various initiatives on social care, the new homes bonus and—this is of particular importance to me—business rates retention. That is a very important incentive to local authorities to be business-friendly, and I am just sorry that Cumbria is not part of one of the pilot schemes.
I want to touch on some wider issues, one of which is the relationship between central Government, local government and MPs. We often underestimate the importance of such relationships and the great change that can be made when people work together. I would like to put on record my thanks to the Secretary of State, the Minister for Housing and the Minister with responsibility for the northern powerhouse, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), for their positive and proactive approach to dealings with me and my local authorities to improve our region.
These are exciting times for my city of Carlisle and for the region. Traditionally, we have in many respects punched below our weight. We are the regional capital and the only city in the area, yet for many years we appear not quite to have reached our potential. I genuinely believe that that is starting to change. We have had investment from Pirelli, the Edinburgh Woollen Mill, 2 Sisters, Pioneer and McVities—to name some very important companies in our area. That demonstrates that the Government are interested in rebalancing the economy and in the northern powerhouse, which is relevant to Carlisle and beyond.
There is further evidence of such support from central Government, and of the relationship between central Government, local government and MPs. We have an  enterprise zone, where businesses are now expanding and growing. We have the garden village with 10,000 new houses—a real vision for the future for Carlisle—and financial support from the Government is helping local authorities to make appropriate plans for that village. As the Secretary of State is well aware, we have made a housing infrastructure fund application that, if successful, will unlock the garden village. It will be the biggest significant infrastructure investment in Carlisle in a generation, and it will be a huge boost to the region, not just to the city. Of course, there is also the borderlands initiative, which goes beyond Carlisle to south-west Scotland and the rest of Cumbria and Northumbria. That really exciting opportunity for the area demonstrates that a positive relationship between councils, MPs and central Government can bring real benefits to a locality.
I give credit to the Labour leader of the city council in that he has been willing to be proactive, but an awful lot more can be done. We have all-out elections in Carlisle in May. If we achieve what I hope will happen—a Conservative council—I think that we will see even more happening when there is working between a Conservative council, a Conservative MP and a Conservative Government.
My final observation is about the devolution of powers and the reform of local government structures. As Ministers are well aware, Cumbria is in need of reform. We are over-governed and over-represented, and there is a real opportunity for rationalisation and savings. The way forward is unitary, but not with a single authority. Cumbria is too large a geographical area with a small population, so something else needs to be done, but clearly reform is required.
I support the Government’s direction of travel on local authorities. It is the right approach and I will support it. My real message today is that with proactive central Government, with a responsive local government and with MPs willing to work with local and national Government, an awful lot can be achieved. I therefore look forward to welcoming Ministers to Carlisle in the near future.

Clive Betts: I probably agree with most of the points about devolution made by the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), but I strongly disagreed with his comments about the situation in 2010. It was clear that we had an international financial crisis, and Gordon Brown deserves a great deal of credit for mitigating its consequences on the international stage. That should be put firmly on record.

Kevin Hollinrake: The hon. Gentleman is right about the financial crisis, but does he agree that Labour balanced the books in only 10 of its 13 years in power and ran up a collective deficit of £440 billion?

Clive Betts: That is quite a good record. If the hon. Gentleman looks back, he will find that one of the problems was the lack of regulation of financial institutions, but the Conservatives criticised Labour for regulating too strongly throughout that period.
I will try to be charitable to the Government by saying that I can welcome some elements of the spending review, including an extra £650 million for social care. However, that has to be set against the LGA’s analysis of a £1 billion deficit in both children’s and adult social care, which will rise to £3 billion for each in 2025. I can  welcome the fact that the spending power of councils as a whole will not fall in real terms—there is a 2.8% increase in cash terms—but that is spread differently across various authorities, and is cushioned by increases in council tax. Those increases bring in more money in richer areas, of course, and those are the areas that have received the smallest cuts to their grants since 2010. Those two things do not sit well together.
Sheffield has seen a 50% cut in grants since 2010 and major cuts to services. Social care services for both children and adults overspent by £15 million last year and will do so again this year. This is not a local authority out of financial control. It has not yet used its reserves, but next year, for the first time, it is planning to do so. Of course, that can be done for only a limited number of years. Many authorities across the political spectrum are in the same position.
Care is very important, but there are other services to consider. Sheffield and most authorities have done the right thing by concentrating on care, because they have statutory responsibilities to the elderly, children in care and people with disabilities, but National Audit Office figures for cuts to other services since 2010 show that private sector housing has been cut by 60%, that traffic management and road safety has been cut by 60%, that recreation and sport has been cut by 50%, that libraries have been cut by 30%, and that planning and development has been cut by 50%. Those cuts are hitting communities. In the end, it is not councils that are hit by such cuts; it is communities. It has happened in my city, where libraries are having to be staffed by volunteers, grass-cutting is done less often and private sector housing officers are not sufficient to bring selective licensing on the scale that we would like. There are cuts to funding for road safety, with bus routes scrapped, and children’s centres and youth centres closed. That is happening in the constituencies and local authorities of Conservative Members, too. What worries me is that as most people do not have family members in care, they see the other council services: parks, buses, libraries, road maintenance and refuse collection. Those are the services that matter to them, but they are the services that are subject to the biggest cuts of all.

Lyn Brown: My hon. Friend is making a fabulous speech. I really appreciate what he says about culture and the role of libraries, leisure centres and parks. They are really important for physical and mental health, but people do not appreciate that.

Clive Betts: Absolutely right. We hear people start to say, “What is my council doing for me? What am I getting from it? I’m paying a lot more as council tax rises by 6%, but I’m getting a lot less.” We should all worry about the impact on and support for local democracy, and local councils as a whole, if that continues and people think that they are paying money into the system but getting nothing out. There was something very wrong with the announcement of another cut to the public health grant of £80 million in the very week in which the Government promoted their new long-term funding plan for the NHS and said that prevention would be more important in the future. Those two things just do not fit together.
There have been two clear facts since 2010: first, local government has been subject to bigger funding cuts than any other sector of the public realm; and, secondly,  within those cuts to local government, the biggest have been in the poorest areas. Those two facts are absolutely clear. Looking ahead, how can we deal with that? First, there has to be a bigger pot of money for local councils in the spending review. The answer is very simple. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has welcomed 75% retention of business rates. It also said that that money should not be used to replace public health and other grants. The money needs to be kept in place and used to help to fund the gap in social care and to reverse some cuts to the other services I have just described. That money needs to be kept in local government, not used to mop up other grants that are going to be cancelled.
On the funding review, there is a question of not just the totality of the money, but how it is distributed. I accept that one area’s fairness will possibly be another area’s unfairness, and we will have different views, but taking deprivation out of the foundation element—taking money away from deprived areas and moving it to others—is very difficult to justify. I say to the Secretary of State that this is a serious exercise. I hope that in the end the Government do not get to a point where they use that mechanism as a way of financially manipulating money into Conservative areas, because that is the suspicion among Labour Members. I accept that this is a difficult and complicated job, but the Government need to be very careful that the process does not become seen as an exercise in financial gerrymandering. That would be very sad for local government, as well as for the people we represent.
There are two challenges for the period ahead. Let us all stand up for local government and ensure that it does better in the next spending review and has a better allocation of resources. Let us then make sure that those resources are fairly delivered. I am sure that we will have a lot more to say about that in the future, but those are the two tests by which I will judge next year’s spending review.

Marcus Jones: I have the utmost respect for the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and it was good to hear his comments. I did not agree with everything he said, but there is no doubt that he has a significant level of knowledge on this subject.
I welcome the real-terms increase in funding for local government in this settlement. I want to talk a little about the settlement in that context and then talk about the segue we have between this year’s local government finance settlement and a number of different events that are going to take place that will frame the funding for local government as we go to the following year.
There is no doubt that for a number of years it has been a challenging time for local government. Local government has done its share. It has worked extremely hard to do its part to help to sort out the absolute mess left behind by the Labour party in 2010. Many councils have worked extremely hard and coped extremely well in very difficult circumstances. Some have made far better decisions than others. I praise my local authority, Warwickshire County Council, for the sound financial management that it has shown while, at the same time,  significantly increasing the funding going into adult and children’s social care. Clearly, it has had to make tough decisions, but it has set priorities and made sure that it is still providing many of its core functions.
That is in stark contrast to one of my district councils—Labour-run Nuneaton and Bedworth District Council—which, quite frankly, has done an absolutely appalling job of dealing with the challenges. It has tried to raise revenue by hiking car parking charges and has lost £500,000 in income. It has overspent on a council depot by £2 million and has purchased a climbing wall, which has so far cost the taxpayer nearly £200,000 and has hardly been used. The council has then proceeded to blame the Government for the financial position that it is in.
I welcome the £17.5 million extra that Warwickshire County Council will get for children’s and adult social care and I welcome the significant investment in roads. In Warwickshire, we are starting not just to fill potholes, but to patch roads properly and replace road surfaces, which is important if we are going to get long-term value for money. I am also pleased that the Secretary of State made his case and got the challenge of negative revenue support grant under control. That makes a difference of £300,000 for my Labour district council and it makes North Warwickshire Borough Council, two wards of which are in my constituency, better off to the tune of £100,000.
One area that I am extremely concerned about in my constituency is rough sleeping. Over and above the settlement, I know that a number of pots of funding are being allocated to dealing with the challenge of rough sleepers. I appeal to the Government Front Benchers, as we go through the various stages of funding on that: in Nuneaton, we desperately need to make sure that we have funding, so that we can get people off the streets and get the support around them to keep them off the streets and help them to sustain accommodation.
Various events are coming up, including the fair funding review, the business rates retention pilots and the spending review. Clearly, we do not know the quantum of funding. There is a lot of speculation over that, but we do not know that as yet. However, there is the distribution of funding to consider. Personally, I think that we need to pay deference to deprivation, but based on looking at how we can improve the potential of areas and let them fulfil their true potential, rather than getting into a race about how deprived every area is, and running and talking those areas down. We also need to look at the difference between county funding and funding for metropolitan areas. That needs to be far fairer. We need to make sure that the business rates review seeks to support councils that do the right thing and drives growth and jobs in their areas.
I mention to the Secretary of State that it would be good to see the new settlement taking place over as long a period as possible. The four-year settlement this time has been very helpful. There are also challenges for the upper-tier authorities that have had various social care funding streams over the last few years. It will be interesting to see how that comes into the final decisions that are made through this process.
I also want to mention the new homes bonus. My area has not used that for frontline services, but many have, and we need to be careful and acknowledge that in the new settlement. Finally, there is car parking.   In times when many towns need to reduce car parking charges, we need to be very careful not to put too much importance on car parking in doing the settlement.
I welcome today’s settlement. I will support it, and it is a good segue into all the hard work that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), will do.

Louise Ellman: Liverpool has received yet another poor local government settlement, but that is no surprise; it is a continuation of the Government’s austerity policies. Liverpool has high concentrations of deprivation and this settlement simply fails to recognise the city’s needs.
Liverpool is now No. 4 on the national list of areas of deprivation, but that is a great improvement on being No. 1, and the praise for the change must go to Mayor Joe Anderson and the councillors in Liverpool who have worked so hard to protect people against a background of continuing cuts. They have worked with the private sector to boost the economy, because that is how to improve things and increase prosperity.
Let us look at what has been happening to local government spending. The Centre for Cities report shows that since 2009-10 Liverpool households have suffered the second deepest real-terms cuts in the country, having lost £816 per resident. Government support has reduced by 63% since 2010.
Government policy is very clear. It is to make the city and other areas more reliant on raising their own income, and Liverpool is involved in a pilot scheme looking at just this policy, but we must remember that raising council tax in Liverpool by 1% produces £1.4 million, while raising it by 1% in Surrey raises £6 million. If we are to have a local government system unduly dependent on areas being able to raise their own finances, areas suffering poverty and deprivation are bound to suffer more. Under the settlement for 2019-20, if Liverpool had a tax base the same as the national average, with the same range of property values, the city would be receiving £102.3 million more to spend on public services. Is that fair? The answer has to be no.
What are the consequences of this long-term policy of reducing Government spending in real terms while need is actually growing? The council has done its best to protect the people of Liverpool and their services—it is an efficient council, it has shown a willingness to innovate, it has done its best to protect services for the under-5s; remarkably, it has protected Sure Start services—but there is now a new threat in the uncertainty around Government funding for maintained nursery schools. Abercromby Nursery School, in common with other such schools across Liverpool and the country, is fighting for funding so that it can continue its vital work and increasing achievement among underachieving pupils, who, at the start of every year, are often in a majority in areas of deprivation.
Liverpool has innovated in raising funding for schools. When the Government stopped funding, Liverpool went to the private sector and raised finance to build seven new schools. This is a council that wants to innovate and work with others. It has protected the arts as best it can, the arts being so vital to Liverpool’s economy, but  none of these things can stop the reality of cuts, and neither the council’s innovation nor its determination to protect people can stop people suffering.
The council cannot stop destitution. Universal credit is causing massive problems in Liverpool. People are becoming destitute and more people are rough sleeping, although the council is making a valiant effort to address that and has had some success. People are suffering from Government cuts to social care. People in hospital cannot go home because adequate packages cannot be made available. Children need support, but vital preventive work cannot be undertaken as it should be.
The fact that cuts have continued year on year makes things harder. The council can try to protect people—and does to the best of its ability—but consecutive cuts year after year cannot protect the most vulnerable.
What should the Government do now? Looking ahead, they must recognise the needs of areas such as Liverpool which are high in deprivation but low in tax base. They must provide a fair council tax settlement for local services, protecting the poor, widening opportunities, and protecting and promoting the city of Liverpool. That is what the council wants to do and the Government should support it by enabling it to happen.

Mark Pawsey: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Dame Louise Ellman), for whom I have the greatest respect.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that councils’ core spending power will increase by 2.8%, and that following a real-terms increase they will have £46.6 billion to spend on services for local residents. I know that councillors, officers and staff will greatly appreciate what he said about their working together to provide value for money for residents in recent years.
I also welcome the key principles that lie behind the Government’s approach. They include the principle of encouraging growth by providing housing and the business premises that will create jobs, and hence providing funds in response to the needs of local residents. I hope to demonstrate to the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), who will visit Rugby later this week, that our council is doing a brilliant job. The council represented by my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) has been less effective.
In July last year, the all-party parliamentary group for district councils, which I chair, produced a report on district council finances. District councils provide 86 of the 137 essential local services in two-tier areas, and cover 40% of our population and 60% of the country by area. According to evidence that the APPG received from the representatives of 60 district councils who appeared before us during our Select Committee-type inquiry, there was real concern about the possibility that the majority would stop receiving revenue support grant by this year. We are delighted that the Secretary of State and the Minister have recognised the concerns about “negative grant”. It was feared that councils would give back to the Treasury more than they would receive from the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government. District councils throughout the country are greatly reassured to learn that that will not now happen, and we are grateful to the Secretary of State.
Our report also asked for no further changes in the new homes bonus baseline rate. The new homes bonus has been a great success during our party’s time in government. It has encouraged local authorities to provide new housing, to fund infrastructure, and to compensate communities for the disruption that occurs when development is taking place. I am very pleased that the Secretary of State has acknowledged that and retained the current baseline, although there is a strong case for the removal of that 0.4% level. It is important to recognise that district councils’ housing completions have increased by 45% since the introduction of the new homes bonus.
There are a couple of other asks in our report. One, which has already been discussed today, is recognition of the role of councils in prevention. District councils, through their housing and planning authorities, provide services that are critical to the health of communities, such as leisure and recreation facilities and home adaptations, and they also tackle homelessness. I am delighted that my local authority, Rugby Borough Council, has allocated an increased budget for that work, and is working closely with the charity Hope 4 to deal with an issue that was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton.
The local authority representatives from whom I have heard want more freedoms and incentives when it comes to raising revenue, but I should enter a word of caution in that regard. I have heard of too many local authorities that are turning themselves into property investors and property companies, often outbidding commercial organisations in the private sector, and I am worried about the level of expertise. Although it is entirely right that local authorities want to invest in their communities, I am worried that sometimes they are not sufficiently hard-headed.
The business rates retention reform is perfectly sensible. I ran a small business in Rugby between 1982 and 2008. I had always believed that what I paid in business rates went into my local community, but for much of that time, it did not. When I learned that, my question was, “What incentive is there for a local authority to do the right thing for growth and attract businesses?” We have turned that around and, like my hon. Friend Nuneaton, I am therefore disappointed that Warwickshire was not selected as one of the pilots.
We are considering a strong settlement today—it is a step in the right direction. Of course, there is always much more we can do, and I look forward to the Local Government Minister responding to the various points that have been raised in the debate.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We now have to go down to five minutes.

Chris Matheson: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey). It is a particular pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Dame Louise Ellman), both of whom came to the House with long and distinguished careers in local government, and indeed having achieved positions of national prominence. We can learn from their experience.
It seems clear from the debate that the Government have a two-pronged approach. The first is cynically to try to divide rural and urban areas. It will not work in my constituency because there are both urban and rural areas in it. The second is the cynical modus operandi that I have mentioned previously of slashing support to public services, then blaming local authorities for failing to deliver them, or when they are forced to put up the council tax.
For example, it is slightly off topic, but we are campaigning to bring a second fire engine back to Chester, yet the fire authority’s funding will fall to zero next year. Local Conservatives have the nerve to support that campaign, even though their party introduced the cuts.
In the previous debate, hon. Members talked about the increase in knife crime. The Mayor of London is often blamed for a rise in knife crime in London, despite the fact that across the country 20,000 police have been cut. The problem intermeshes with the cuts to local government that we are discussing. Children’s services and money to schools have been slashed. It is no wonder that knife crime has increased, but apparently it is all the fault of the Mayor of London and others.
That brings me to the settlement for my council, Cheshire West and Chester. For the last four years, the Labour council, led by Samantha Dixon, has had to deal with a £57 million cut. Since 2010, the cash cut to my local authority has been £330 million. In the next round, which we are discussing, a further £20 million will be cut, despite the fact that that extremely efficient council, which is down to its bare bones, is already running on empty. If the Secretary of State had any courage or sense of responsibility, he would tell us where he thinks those cuts should fall. Should they be to support for vulnerable children, disabled adults, the homeless—homelessness has of course doubled nationally on the Conservatives’ watch—or rural bus services? Ministers will then of course attack our council leaders when we are forced to put up council tax.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) pointed out that all the additional spending power is created only from increases in council tax, but the situation is worse than that. The rate support grant is largely being replaced by individual pots for which councils have to bid in a beauty contest: money for potholes; money for rapid rehousing; support for high streets; extra cash for children’s services. Councils have to go cap in hand to Ministers every time they want to fund anything, and Ministers can cherry-pick their favourite councils. We all know where that money will go.
The Government are centralising expenditure and taking away local democracy. They have announced extra money for 20 councils to support children’s social services. I can make a fair guess that the majority of those councils will be of a particular political complexion, and they will not be Labour. There will be another special deal for Surrey or, as we have heard tonight, for Tory Northamptonshire.
Meanwhile, locally, the Minister’s fellow Conservatives in Cheshire West and Chester want to spend more money supporting free parking and on mowing the grass while criticising Labour locally for having to put up the council tax. Those are both worthy aims, but those Conservatives need to do locally what the Conservatives have so far failed to do nationally—namely, to say  which services will be cut to pay for the increased expenditure. If I may, I will briefly cross over the border into Cheshire East, because this has implications for the Minister. Madness still reigns there, with police investigations, corruption allegations and a whole series of chief executives and senior officers being sacked. I say to the Minister that if that were a Labour council, the commissioners would have been called in years ago.
Ministers are driving ahead with plans to keep 100% of business rates, which means that the richer councils will get richer and the poorer areas will be made even poorer. The Conservatives will use that business rate revenue to keep their council tax rises low, then claim political credit because the funding formula has been cut back. Cuts are forcing local authorities and other public services to hunker down and defend the money that they have. In Cheshire West and Chester, we are trying to build local partnerships with voluntary groups and charities, but that is not sustainable for long. At some point, Ministers will have to take responsibility for the dreadful effects that their cuts are having in the real world.

Bob Neill: It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson).
I welcome the many positive aspects of the funding settlement, including the assistance given to the elimination of the negative rate support grant and the additional moneys given through the better care fund, which will benefit local authorities such as mine. However, it also highlights the pressing need for us to move swiftly and radically to overhaul local government funding properly. An efficient authority, Bromley will balance its budget this year, but unless we have change, in four years’ time we will have a funding gap of between £20 million and £30 million, depending on the assumptions one makes. The current system is not sustainable in the long term, which is why it is critical that we press ahead with the fairer funding review and with a radical approach to the devolution of business rates, as well as with the other initiatives that the Government are looking at in this area. That must include a White Paper on adult social care, to follow the Green Paper that has been promised. It is critical that we have that early, in time for the 2021 finance review.

Jo Johnson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Bob Neill: Of course I will give way to my borough neighbour.

Jo Johnson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time we had an adjustment to our local authority’s baseline, to reflect the fact that it has made enormous efficiencies in order to absorb a 50% real-terms cut over the past four years, and to reward it for being one of the most efficient local authorities in the country?

Bob Neill: I very much agree with my hon. Friend.
I will now deal with the specifics. Bromley has historically been a low-cost authority, and credit must go to the Conservative-led Bromley Council, which has made savings of around £97 million per annum since 2011-12. However, because it has been efficient historically, there  is really no fat left for it to cut, and because of the way the system works at the moment, there is no reward for efficiency. There is no reward in the formula for being a historically low-cost and efficient authority. If anything, perversely, we tend to get penalised for this, and that needs to be put right in the spending review.
We also need to recognise that there are more nuances, even in an outer-London Borough such as Bromley, than people might expect. Deprivation is now moving across London, and the old distinction between inner and outer London does not work any more. Bromley has the fourth lowest level of settlement funding in the whole of London, despite having the sixth highest population. It is the largest borough in terms of geography, and it has the highest proportion of older people, with all the cost pressures that that places on adult social care. It also has the largest road network, but it’s funding settlement is the second lowest per head of population.
That does not make sense to the members and officers of Bromley Council, who are working hard to deliver services for our residents. They have a limited ability to make further savings while maintaining statutory services, and the scope for discretionary spend is more and more squeezed. There are pressures not only on adult social care but on the temporary accommodation budgets, not least because the operation of benefit caps in London is pushing people in private rented accommodation out from inner London to the outer-London boroughs such as Bromley. That means that we, in turn, are having to accommodate people out in Kent. This is leading to real difficulties for many London boroughs.
There are also real pressures on children’s services and social care. Bromley has behaved magnificently in turning around its social services, which were rated poor two years ago, but are now rated good and outstanding in terms of leadership, with a Minister describing the speed of turnaround as unprecedented. The council achieved that despite funding pressures, but those pressures still exist. More children are diagnosed or recognised as having complex needs that must be dealt with, for example. Again, the current settlement mechanism is too blunt and opaque an instrument to deal with the situation adequately.
We must also consider the full implications of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. I warmly welcomed the Act, but the truth is that, in practice, not all the costs are being picked up for local authorities such as Bromley, so we need to consider a revised formula. The same goes for the deprivation of liberty social care arrangements, because their costs must also be picked up. Such things can be achieved through a sensible revision of the formula.
Turning to the need for business rates reform, Bromley has gone into the London business rates pool and wants to work collaboratively with its neighbours. However, Bromley wants to become self-sufficient and does not want to be dependent on Government grants in the long term. Its ambitious approach to supporting development in the borough, particularly in the town centre in my constituency, underlines that desire, but it needs a proper slice of devolution as a reward in a way that is not currently available given how the pool operates.
Finally, if we are to give local government genuine flexibility, we must look again at the amount of ring fencing within some of the remaining grants. I would  hope that we could move a situation whereby such a grant as there is simply comes as a block and then the local authority has the flexibility and leeway to move money around based on its priorities. A simple example from Bromley is that the council is unable to move money from the schools block into the higher-need blocks or into special educational needs transport. A suburban borough such as Bromley has larger distances compared with inner-London boroughs and so requires a greater level of flexibility than the formula currently permits.
While welcoming the settlement, which I shall support tonight, I hope that the Minister will take away my specific points and the broader cry for root-and-branch reform of local government funding.

Stephen Twigg: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who made a thoughtful, reflective contribution to today’s debate.
The publication of the latest Centre for Cities report last week confirmed what my constituents in Liverpool already knew: the city has been hit hard by almost a decade of austerity, with massive cuts in central Government funding hitting not only the council but police and fire services. Benefit changes have also hit the poorest communities the hardest. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Dame Louise Ellman) has already spoken about what the report says about Liverpool, but I will repeat one of the statistics she quoted because it is so powerful. Since 2010, Liverpool has lost £441 million in Government funding, which equates to a per-resident reduction of £816 a year. That is the largest per capita cut across the whole country. As she said, our directly elected Mayor Joe Anderson and the Labour city council have shown enormous leadership in taking the city though that period despite the cuts, and have been doing their utmost to protect services for some of the most vulnerable communities in our city.
To illustrate all that, the city council spent £222 million in 2010 supporting adults who need help in the community because of age, infirmity or disability. That has now reduced to £152 million despite demand rising by 15%. Such has been the pressure on Liverpool’s adult social care budget that the council has had to spend almost its entire reserves simply to support social care spending. We also have some of the highest levels of looked-after children in the country. As we know, those numbers have been going up across the country in recent years. As a consequence, the city council overspent last year on vital services for vulnerable children and young adults by £7 million.
Against that backdrop, and despite the pressures on its funding, the city council recently adopted a radical new approach to delivering social care. It has been able to find an additional £7.7 million investment to employ 160 new staff to cut the case load of children’s social workers by half, and I pay tribute to the city council for doing that even in these difficult circumstances. The council says that its new model will reduce the number of children for whom each social worker is responsible, allowing them more time to work with children, young people and families. I pay tribute to the council for that important work.
We had an excellent debate on maintained nursery schools last Thursday, in which I spoke about the two outstanding nursery schools in my constituency—East Prescot Road and Ellergreen. I know this is a matter for the Department for Education and, ultimately, the Treasury, but I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside said about the crucial role played by maintained nursery schools.
I also echo the call from our city council for a royal commission to ensure a fair funding formula for local services. We have heard different points of view in this debate, each of us representing our own constituency. A royal commission could provide an opportunity for this to be looked at in a full, comprehensive and independent manner.
The Government’s own figures on core spending power show that, had Liverpool been subjected to the average level of cuts over the past nine years, our budget would be £71 million better off. We have seen Liverpool’s spending power per household cut by over £700 during a period in which Surrey has seen its spending power per household increase by £65.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), the shadow Secretary of State, rightly said that the council tax base is crucial in determining what a local authority can actually spend. Liverpool City Council raises an average of £886 per chargeable dwelling. As such, we are in the bottom fifth of local authorities in the country. If we had the average tax base, we would have getting on towards £100 million more in council tax revenue. That is the basic injustice that hits the areas of the country with the greatest levels of poverty and inequality, which is why this settlement is unacceptable.

Andrew Lewer: I welcome most of the local government settlement for 2019-20 and its recognition of the work done by councils to provide hundreds of services to local residents. Given the rapidly expanding council funding gap, which the LGA reports will rise to £8 billion by the middle of the next decade, I urge the Government to use the 2019 spending review to begin clarifying their plans for sustainable funding for local government after March 2020.
Part of the way to achieve that sustainable funding would be to move to unitary councils across England, a change estimated to generate savings of nearly £3 billion, as revealed in a County Councils Network report. Based on an assessment of data across 27 two-tier local authorities in England, replacing them with unitary authorities could save between £2.4 billion and £2.9 billion nationally. Colleagues will know that process is already under way in Northamptonshire.
After 12 years as a district councillor and 10 years as a county councillor, including time as a county council leader, I know the great work that both tiers can do, but my experience has convinced me that unitary is the way forward to promote localism and democratic accountability, as well as efficiency. I take this opportunity to praise many colleagues at both Northampton Borough Council and Northamptonshire County Council.
Northamptonshire County Council has, to my dismay, become a shorthand for things going wrong, rivalling Venezuela in that regard. The current leadership who have taken on that profound challenge, such as county  council leader Matt Golby, deserve our thanks for their efforts to turn things around ahead of the move to unitary. The Secretary of State’s announcement today on Northamptonshire County Council will, I am sure, be welcomed by council colleagues.
Coming back to the local government finance settlement, I welcome the additional £240 million allocated for adult social care, and £410 million for both adult and children’s social care, announced in the Budget. Although that is helpful in the short term, adult social care faces a funding gap of £1 billion in 2019-2020. I appreciate the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care giving us April to look forward to by announcing that month—instead of a season, which is progress—for the launch of the much anticipated social care Green Paper, but I need to say to him and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government team, through you, Mr Speaker, that after all these delays it had better be good. It had better be radical, open to fresh and non-statist ideas, and cognisant of not only just how big a challenge but what an opportunity getting adult care right could be. Nothing is more central to effective local government funding, and thereby to MHCLG, than getting this right.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman has made his point with considerable force and clarity, and it will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench.

Kevan Jones: Let me start with a couple of facts: there has been a 49.1% reduction in Government core funding to local authorities and a 28.6% real terms reduction in spending power, which means Government funding plus local council tax, since 2010; and there has been a 32% real-terms reduction in spending on non-social care areas. Those are not my figures, but those of the National Audit Office.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) mentioned the Centre for Cities report, which shows that those cuts have not been fairly distributed; they have been targeted at northern cities and northern councils. Some of the more affluent areas, such as Wokingham in Surrey, have had no reduction in core spending at all. This Government have used local government funding like a pork barrel, putting it into areas that support the Conservative party and penalising areas that do not. Since 2010, Durham County Council has lost £224 million in its budget, and it is predicted that in the next four years it will have to slash another £39 million. That is being done by a Conservative Government, but I do not want to let the Liberal Democrats off, because they also signed up to these cuts when they were in coalition.
On the ability to raise finance, Durham has a similar problem to that outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby, as 55% of its properties are in band A. The more core funding from national Government is cut, the more Durham County Council’s ability to raise funding is limited. In addition, Durham can raise only a limited amount through the retention of business rates compared with what can be raised in Westminster and other places. So the future does not look bright for Durham County Council, a well-run authority, under this Government’s proposals. If we look at core spending power per dwelling, which is what  the Government are looking at, we see that the national average is £1,908 whereas the figure for Durham is £1,727 and Surrey’s figure is £2,004. Areas of deprivation in Surrey would not even register on any type of social index compared with what we have in Durham, a former industrial area, which just shows us the way in which this Government have used the system to reward their own areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) raised the issue of public health funding. If the Government go forward with the notion of the fair funding formula—that should be getting done under the Trade Descriptions Act—Durham County Council is forecast to lose some £19 million, or 35% of its public health budget. That is happening in some of the most deprived communities anywhere in the country. It is a rural county, but it has deprivation on a par with some inner cities and parts of the former coalfields. How can it be right that under that formula Surrey would gain, and deprived areas such as County Durham would lose? The Government are taking political decisions about where the funding goes. There is this notion among those on the Government Benches that somehow every single council is the same, but I am sorry, they are not. The demands on my local council and councils such as Liverpool in respect of adult social care and looked-after children are a lot more severe than the demands in some of the areas that are getting extra funding.
In her statement on Europe on 10 December, the Prime Minister said:
“It means working across all areas to make this a country that truly works for everyone, and a country where nowhere and nobody is left behind.”—[Official Report, 10 December 2018; Vol. 651, c. 25.]
I am sorry, but the policies of this Government over the past eight years have run counter to the Prime Minister’s promise. That just shows how hollow her words are.

Richard Graham: Earlier this afternoon, in your absence, Mr Speaker, we had a striking contrast in both the style and content of the Secretary of State’s presentation on local government financing and the Opposition spokesman’s response. On the one hand, we had someone calm and measured who, with his experience as Security Minister and as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, has dealt with real crises, perhaps not least his own cancer. On the other hand, we had the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who was more purple than reddish with indignation as he made his remarks about how his party would never do anything to hurt the people. He said that we must grow the cake. We in Gloucester remember how Labour grew the cake, and he would do well to listen.

Anna Turley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Graham: No, let me make this point first.
I remember how Labour grew the cake in Gloucester: by shrinking the economy; by spending furiously on public services while 6,000 of my constituents lost their jobs in business, apprenticeships dried up, and engineering and manufacturing were on the verge of closure, as my Labour predecessor blithely ignored the fact that we  had the second worst-performing secondary school in the country; by churning out youth unemployment; and by closing the King’s own post office. We know all about Labour growing the cake, going bankrupt, increasing unemployment—like all Labour Governments—and then complaining about austerity when Britain calls for the Conservatives to sort things out.
Let this House not forget that it was the last Labour-run—

Jim McMahon: indicated dissent.

Richard Graham: The hon. Gentleman should listen to this. It was the last Labour-run city council in Gloucester that sold the car park for a pound and bought it back for a million. Let us also not forget that the current Leader of the Opposition claimed that 672 Gloucester City Homes tenants had been thrown out, although the actual figure was eight.
We do not need to take any lectures from the Opposition on growing the cake, but does that mean that every Conservative Government get it right? No, of course not. I wish to highlight briefly some of the issues for us in Gloucester. Library research confirms that Gloucester is in fact the worst-affected council, with a year-on-year spending decrease between this year and next of 4.4%. The council’s core spending power fell by more than 8% over the past four-year period.
In today’s world, we know that all second-tier councils must do as much as they can to generate efficiencies, whether by generating savings from increased productivity, merging their back offices, sharing space with other authorities or scrapping the mayor’s car—you name it. That is what every good council should be doing and it is what Gloucester City Council has done. The truth is, though, that as an urban district authority, it is difficult for us to grow and generate new homes bonus, because we have only 5 square miles of land. We are penalised by the deadweight calculation, which is the starting point of the number of homes, and we do not benefit as much as we could from business rate retention, although we are part of the pilot project in Gloucestershire.
The council is a good one. It is well rated by peer group reviews and respected in the city. It is leading on creative physical regeneration, with an award-winning bus station that is much admired in Cardiff and elsewhere, and making real progress on human regeneration by making sure that rough sleepers are helped into housing through the social impact bond and gearing up for a new homelessness hub, both of which are funded by the Government. None the less, the additional costs of dealing with homelessness issues are greater than the extra revenue we were given.
The Minister, who did see Gloucester and Cheltenham councils, at my request and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), has made some pragmatic decisions, but they do not, I am afraid, resolve the financial problems that my city council faces. These include issues such as pension contributions and the business of council fees and charges income. Despite being able to raise our precept, we will not, I am afraid, be able to match the costs if our city expects the delivery of the services that it so values at the moment.
I would love to ask the Minister this: will he have not a full blown review of local government funding, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) called for, but arrange for a senior official to look specifically at our city council and offer advice on whether the system is working for us and fair, and what more we can and should do to raise the revenue to deliver the services that are so valued across our city of Gloucester?

Lyn Brown: Like other Members, I want to remind Ministers what the places that they have cut so savagely actually look like. By next year, Newham will have lost 48% of its grant—£138 million a year. That is a £1,301 cut for every household, which is the second highest cut in the country in what is arguably the second poorest borough in the country.
Conservative Members like to pretend that this is all about population—the number of residents in an area who need council services. How can that be true given that Newham grew by almost a third in the 10 years leading up to 2015? We are already the fourth largest London borough by population, and we are expected to have the second largest population growth in London over the next 22 years as well. We also have the youngest population in the country, with 40% of residents under 25 according to the last census. That obviously massively increases need for children’s and youth services, as well as for local authority school services, public health, welfare assistance and more.
The Government seem to think that the only age group that needs council support is pensioners—through social care. It is absolutely true that social care is in crisis, and that affects my constituents in the same way it affects those of every other Member, but young people need much more support as well, and nothing illustrates that better than the fact that nine of my young constituents were murdered between January 2017 and March last year.
A further change that has increased demand for council services is the huge growth in the proportion of my constituents who have to rent privately. Private rentals have doubled—they made up 23% of the total in 2006 and 46% 10 years later—and private rents are simply extortionate. The lower quartile rent on a two-bed over a chicken shop in Newham is now £1,250 a month. Lower quartile earnings are £1,168 a month, so a month’s full-time pay will not even cover the rent, let alone luxuries such as food, heating, clothes and so on. It cannot be any wonder then that the council recently found that, when housing costs are included, 67% of Newham’s children live in poverty.
Although we do have serious problems locally due the consequences of the right to buy, it is not that social housing has reduced so massively, but owner-occupation. In 2006, owner-occupation represented 47% of local housing but, over 10 years, it has more than halved to just 23%. Homelessness and temporary accommodation are extreme problems in Newham—the situation is the worst in the country. The number of Newham residents in temporary accommodation almost doubled between 2012 and 2017. There are more children in temporary accommodation in the 36 sq km of Newham than there are in the 63,000 sq km of Yorkshire, the south-west, the north-east and the east midlands combined.
This urgent and horrifying crisis is simply awful for the families who have to live with it day by day, but it has also meant fewer people living in Newham for long periods, thereby building up relationships and a sense of community, and far more people feeling constantly insecure. That insecurity in itself has generated yet more need for council services, and I believe that it has contributed to everything from criminal gang activity to mental health crises, and from childhood obesity to elderly loneliness—and even to things like fly-tipping. All these issues have a cost to the council and make it harder for council workers to do their most important jobs for the public.
Can the Government seriously tell me that my constituents have not been harmed by their cuts, and that those cuts have not contributed to the rise in young people being murdered or in fear on my streets? Can they seriously tell me that continuing these cuts over the next year will not deepen that harm? No, they cannot—not honestly. Frankly, the best way that this Government can help my constituents is by getting out of the way.

Peter Aldous: I speak in two capacities: as a Member of Parliament representing a coastal constituency with wards that are among the most deprived in the country; and as chairman of the county all-party parliamentary group, whose role is to ensure that county areas receive sufficient funding to provide good-quality services that meet their residents’ needs.
The Government’s proposals for 2019-20 address the short-term challenges faced by councils in the area that I represent, and I am supportive of them, but there is also a need to think strategically and look to the long term. Although the Government have recognised the challenges that immediately lie ahead, there is much work to be done as we look to the future. Yes, the settlement provides councils such as Suffolk County Council and Waveney District Council with breathing space and vital short-term resources. The Government have recognised the immediate challenges that such areas face and have made resources available. The £180 million from the levy account that is being returned to local government is much needed and welcome.
This is the final year of a four-year settlement upon which the Government embarked in 2015. It has provided councils with some financial certainty, but it has also required them to drive through efficiency savings that, in many respects, have been a really tough challenge. There is now very little, if any, fat left on the bone. Although this settlement contains vital short-term support, it does not address the medium-term financial pressures that councils face, and nor does it provide long-term certainty. The uncertainty beyond 2020 is creating significant financial risks for councils in county areas. A failure to provide a significant uplift in funding for them from 2020 onwards will challenge the long-term financial viability of the services that they provide.
It is vital that local government is provided with a long-term sustainable solution. This should encourage autonomy, incentivise growth and provide sufficient money for adult social care and children’s services, both of which are under real pressure. The fair funding formula is critical to securing this solution. The present system of funding is outdated, unfair and opaque.  Moreover, county areas receive the lowest amount of funding per head from Government grants and retained business rates—£153 per person compared with £225 for unitaries, £319 for metropolitan boroughs and £437 for inner London wards. This is notwithstanding the fact that it is more expensive to provide services in rural areas, that there is an increasingly disproportionate elderly population in counties and that, as the county APPG’s recent report on social mobility highlighted, there is a real problem of social mobility in coastal areas and county areas, where young people are missing out on opportunities that are available so readily elsewhere in the country.
In the short term, the settlement just about keeps the house wind and watertight, but in the longer term, we require underpinning, a radical overhaul and additional investment. I believe that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Local Government understand the challenges that such areas face. I recognise the various demands from Members that they will have to balance, but I do believe that county areas have been taken for granted and ignored for too long, so I urge the Minister to put that unfairness right through the fair funding review and the comprehensive spending review.

Wera Hobhouse: The past few years have seen the deliberate and systematic destruction of local government. It is local services delivered by local councils that most people see from day to day. From bin collections to park maintenance, from library services to food safety, from highway repairs to care services, these services matter—they are a core part of our local democracy and what people experience from government. With the excuse of austerity, this Tory Government have deliberately stripped out the ability of communities to shape their local areas. Most services are now being contracted out to private companies, and the oversight of good local services is deliberately fragmented and complex.
The biggest cuts to local government are still to come and still to be felt. Councils have emptied their reserves, cut services to the bone and shed the maximum number of council staff. The consequence of all this is poor local services—a tatty public realm, non-existent youth services and unmaintained parks. Worse than that, it is homeless people on the streets, low-quality care for the elderly and limited provision for vulnerable children, especially those with mental health problems. The Government offer nothing new for children’s social care, which has seen a £1 billion shortfall.
In my constituency, 82% of Bath and North East Somerset Council’s budget is spent on adult and children’s social care. This leaves the remaining 18% to fund everything else, from waste collection to road maintenance, library services, the arts, public realm improvements and community outreach services. These services are an absolute shadow of their former selves, becoming more and more squeezed under the pressure of a growing responsibility for social care. Bath and North East Somerset Council cut 15% of its total staff last year and still has another £12 million of cuts to make to meet central Government targets. We have heard today about inequalities. I acknowledge that Bath is one of the better local councils, so I absolutely understand what councils have to face in areas that are even less well off than Bath.
What is the Liberal Democrat answer to this? It is properly funded local government. We have been talking about the revenue support grant and how it provides some fair funding across the board. The Conservative Government currently plan to completely abolish the revenue support grant, which has distributed resources fairly from richer to poorer areas, and replace it with a system where councils can substantially increase council tax and retain the business rates that they collect. These proposals are highly divisive and will starkly increase inequalities across the country. Liberal Democrats are totally committed to the fair distribution of money across all areas of the UK for the provision of good local services. Wherever people live, there should not be a postcode lottery for local services. We will replace business rates with land value taxation, which will help to protect our high streets for the long term.
Liberal Democrats propose additional higher council tax bands so that everybody, including people in high-value properties, makes a fair contribution to the public purse. I understand the argument that just adding council tax bands will not make the substantial difference, so I confirm that the revenue support grant, as one of the fairer ways of providing fair council funding, is the absolute bottom line. There must also be, after 30 years, a revaluation of property values to correctly establish the correct council tax band for every property. While we still have council tax in the mix, it has to be fair.
Finally, I will touch on devolution and democracy. It is not only local government finance that is being cut to the bone by this Government—they are also taking every opportunity that arises to weaken local democratic accountability. Every structural change in local government proposed in the past few years has been to cut out the democratic levels and to have fewer elected councillors making local decisions.
The Tory agenda is clear: weaken local government, cut its budgets to the bone, remove the checks and balances of local democracy, and pave the way for large private sector providers answering to Whitehall. Liberal Democrats have a completely different vision for local government: properly funded and properly democratic, taking decisions about local services, delivering them locally and being locally accountable. This funding settlement is woefully inadequate and I will vote against it.

Maria Caulfield: The funding challenges facing East Sussex County Council are well documented. It has had to make £129 million of savings since 2010 and has cut services to the core as a result. Most of the difficulty is due to the demographic challenges that the county council faces. It has the highest number of 85-year-olds in the country, and a quarter of the population are over 65, which puts huge pressure on adult social services. We heard earlier that most councils are spending money on their children’s services. In the budget for next year, East Sussex proposes to spend £171 million on adult social care and just £77 million on school services, because it is having to push the funding to where the greatest need is.
Over the weekend, I met the chief executive of East Sussex County Council and the leader of West Sussex County Council. They both have high praise for the  Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak). He has met them, listened to them and understands their problems, but they still face difficulties. They have the historical issue of being rural authorities with 50% less funding per head of population than urban areas, and we cannot continue like that. Many Members have mentioned the fair funding formula. It cannot come soon enough for areas such as East Sussex. I know that the Minister has had discussions with the council. When this four-year funding settlement is over, the council needs certainty, so that it can plan services.
Despite the revenue support grant dropping, East Sussex County Council has received extra funding from the Government. It has been lucky enough to be included in the business rates pilot, which has generated £1.6 million for it. It has secured £4 million of extra funding for adult social care, £2 million extra for services this winter, £4 million extra for potholes and £1.1 million for special educational needs. While not part of the revenue support grant, all those pots of money are making a real difference to communities in my constituency. I welcome that, but we need it to be ongoing, not in yearly one-off settlements. I urge the Minister to look at population projections in the fair funding review, because we do not want to be pitting old against young and asking who needs the funding most. It has to be done on a fairer basis.
While East Sussex County Council does need more funding, I am disappointed when councils just top-slice and cut services when funding is a struggle. I have the privilege of having the county town in my constituency of Lewes, and it is like a Monopoly board of local government infrastructure. None of it is joined up or shared. We have the beautiful town hall in Lewes town, which the town council shares and is well used by the community. Two minutes down the road, we have Southover House, which is for the district council and which no one else uses. A further five-minute walk down the road is the county hall building, which is the sole preserve of the county council. We have Sussex police headquarters another five-minute walk from that, which is overstretched and does not have enough space for the police, but the police and crime commissioner has her own headquarters another five minutes down the road from that. We then have the beautiful Lewes House building, which is completely underused but owned by the district council. It cannot be right that councils are not making the best use of the resources they have when they are struggling.
I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) in urging councils to become unitary authorities. I would force them into that, because this is not the best use of resources. That would not only save £2.9 million across the country but enable better services. Our county council recently introduced fees for using the tips for tyres and rubble, which has dramatically increased fly-tipping, and the district council then has to pick up the tab for that. These are not joined-up services. This is not just about saving money; it is about a better service for local residents.
I will support the Government tonight, but I urge the Minister to devise an innovation fund. If the Government cannot force councils to become unitary authorities, they must incentivise them to do so, because they are not making the best use of their resources.

Liam Byrne: I want to start by associating myself with the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), in what I thought was a brilliant exposition of the injustice at the heart of this statement this afternoon. Be in no doubt: this statement today is a basic question of injustice and unfair deserts. It shows this Government’s wilful determination not to do anything about tackling the injustices that now scar this country, including communities such as mine in Birmingham. If they did want to tackle them, at the heart of this statement would be a bold determination to make sure that we were investing most in those communities that need it most. Instead, as the shadow Secretary of State has set out with such brilliance, we have exactly the opposite.
Many of us on this side of the House came into politics for a simple reason: because we wanted to tackle the basic, fundamental injustice that the postcode in which people are born defines their possibilities in life. That is why I gave up a career in business to serve what is this country’s most income-deprived constituency, where four generations of my family have lived and worked.
Nine years into this Government’s austerity, those injustices are now looming larger than ever. This Government have given us a slower recovery than after the great depression. What that means in Birmingham is that it is harder to earn a good life than ever before. The employment rate in our city is now lower than it was before the great depression. In some parts of the west midlands today, people are now earning 9% less than they did in 2008. The ladder in life is harder to get on to because apprenticeship numbers in the west midlands have fallen by a third. That is 10,000 fewer apprentices in our region over the last year.
How can it be just for a child born in Ladywood to live eight years less than a child born in Sutton Coldfield? How can it be right that a kid born in Alum Rock has a third less chance of going to university than a kid born in Solihull? How can it be right that someone born in Bordesley Green has a one in five chance of being overcrowded, even if their parents or siblings are disabled? How can it be just that someone born in Birmingham this year has a four in 10 chance of being born in poverty? These injustices are wrong.
These inequalities demand an answer, not the proposals from the Secretary of State this afternoon. This Government were able to rustle up £1 billion for their friends in the Democratic Unionist party in the space of days. In Birmingham, we have taken the biggest cuts in local government history—£690 million to date, £85 million still to come and £46 million to come out of our budget this year. That is a total of nearly three quarters of a billion pounds. The bad news is that it could be worse because we face £161 million of pressures over the next two to three years. That is why I say to the Secretary of State today, on behalf of all the Labour MPs in Birmingham: this battering of our city has to stop and it has to stop now.
Yesterday morning, I met the friends of Kane Walker, the young man who died on the pavements of Birmingham a week or two ago. They could not stop for long because they were rushing to hospital a friend, homeless too, who had been bitten in the face by rats and they feared  sepsis—the sepsis that they think killed Kane Walker just a week or two ago. But Kane Walker was not alone: one homeless person a week now dies in the west midlands, sometimes in medieval conditions. This, in the fifth richest economy on earth, is a moral scandal, and this statement this afternoon has done nothing to reverse it.
This Secretary of State takes the issues of Birmingham so seriously that, when its entire number of Labour Members of Parliament wrote to him demanding an urgent meeting last November, he cleared his diary immediately to offer us some time five months later—in March. I know how little this Government care for Britain’s second city, and I know it will take a Labour Government to bring justice back to our city.

Kevin Hollinrake: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s remarks. This is of course the fourth year of a longer term framework for local government funding, and the key element is the need for a fairer funding formula. We also need to deal with some of the underlying pressures for local authorities, particularly the time bomb that is adult social care. An extra £10 billion of funding for adult social care to 2020, including £650 million committed by the 2018 Budget, will go a long way to help in the short term. In the longer term, we need the fairer funding formula underpinned by the business rates retention pilots. I am delighted to see that North Yorkshire County Council has been entrusted with one of those pilots.
The fairer funding review and the spending review that comes with it are vital. If fairer funding is simply a redistribution of money—moving money from one local authority to another—it will be difficult for some authorities. We must learn the lessons of the fairer funding review in education, and fairer funding must come with extra money in the pot generally, to make it possible for some local authorities to manage as we redress the balance and make things fairer.
The present situation is unfair. Nine out of the 10 best funded authorities per capita per year are in London; they have about £1,000 spending power per person a year. In North Yorkshire we have £770 per person a year, despite the fact that a much larger proportion of that £770 is made up of council tax. We are contributing more but getting less in services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) pointed out, central Government grants to local authorities to inner-London councils are £437 per person per year, for metropolitan boroughs they are £319, for unitaries they are £225 and for counties £153. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) cannot talk about unfairness and avoid those figures. We must move to a fairer funding settlement.
I pay tribute to my neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), who has looked at this issue and tried to simplify the system. Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication, as da Vinci said many years ago. My hon. Friend is right to try to simplify this and make it fairer. We must take on board many of the comments that have been made to make sure that the funding formula is fairer in the future.
Adult social care is putting more pressure on my constituency than any other issue and we need to take a more strategic approach to its funding. The Select Committees on Housing, Communities and Local Government and on Health and Social Care had a long joint inquiry on this and came up with a simple recommendation—to emulate the German system of social insurance, which involves a social care premium. It is a simple, scalable and sustainable solution. It is a small amount that everybody pays—everybody pays something so nobody has to pay everything. That is the key to it. It was introduced in Germany in 1995 to replace a system of local government funding, and it has been incredibly successful. It was a unanimous recommendation of those cross-party Select Committees.
The key element of the system is not the small amount people pay in, but how they get the money out. If someone is defined as in need of social care—a young adult or someone in later life—they can take it in the form of local authority provision, third-party provision or as a cash settlement every month which can be paid to a neighbour or loved one, be it daughter, son, nephew or whatever. It also helps to strengthen the social fabric by making sure that people are looked after by those who love them most and understand their needs the most. It is something that we should adopt, and I hope it will be in the Green Paper that is expected shortly.

Anna Turley: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), a fellow North Yorkshire colleague. He made some powerful and thoughtful points, in particular on the disparity of funding between the north and the south. I enjoyed his contribution very much.
This is the second time today that I have had to stand up in this Chamber to fight against the unfair and disproportionate funding that is leaving my constituents behind. The funding formula is leaving them at the bottom of the table. Areas that are more deprived, as we have heard from so many Members across the Chamber, are not getting the funding and support they need. There is clearly unfairness in the funding system. It is vital that we make that point today. The Government have to look at it again.
Redcar and Cleveland Council has lost £90 million since 2010. That is 35% of our funding. How on earth can a council be expected to continue to provide the level of service it wants to provide for its residents, particularly in areas like mine with high deprivation and high child poverty, when it has lost 35% of its funding? Residents are seeing and feeling the impact. As many colleagues have said today, we have seen a huge increase in the crisis of social care for adults and for those with disabilities. There are huge challenges around mental health support, particularly for young people, and there has been a rise in the number of children being taken into care. The situation is just not sustainable. Something has to give. The Government must look again.
In Redcar and Cleveland, we have lost 1,100 jobs in the past nine years. We have faced not just the tragedy of those individual job losses, but the knock-on effect of spending power being taken out of the community.  On top of other job losses, that is just not acceptable. In 2010, I worked for a local government think-tank. The big pressure around the cuts was the argument that said, “Councils have reserves. They can dip into their reserves and the cuts will hardly affect them.” Redcar and Cleveland has already had to spend £14 million of its reserves on trying to balance the books. There is nothing left. The cuts are going to the bone.
On top of that, Redcar and Cleveland lost business rates in the region of £10 million when we lost our steelworks. This is simply not acceptable. I have spoken to Ministers about the unfair system where Redcar and Cleveland was asked to pay £2.6 million for business rates relating to an industrial property that was revaluated that never even crossed its desk. It is not acceptable that Redcar and Cleveland has had to pay for business rates it never actually saw.
One in four children in Redcar and Cleveland are living in poverty. One in 10 four and five-year-olds are classified as obese, and that doubles by the age of 10 to 11. Currently 300 children—one in 10—are looked after. That has risen 35% since April 2017—a 35% rise in just two years.
I thank Sue Jeffrey and the Labour team in Redcar and Cleveland for their excellent work. They have done a superb job of dealing with the implications of the devastating cuts, protecting people on the frontline and supporting the most vulnerable people in our communities. They have kept our five leisure centres and all our libraries open. They have bust a gut to look after the poor and the needy. They are doing a superb job with both arms tied behind their backs.
Councils are at breaking point and this settlement gives the people of Redcar and Cleveland nothing. When people are already having to pay more council tax—an unfair tax—they are paying twice for services that are being cut to the bone. That cannot continue.

John Bercow: Four-minute speeches are now preferable—much more preferable.

Rachel Maclean: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley).
I rise to put on record my thanks to the Minister and the Department for the rise in core spending power in my constituency, and to highlight the urgent need to finish the funding review, as I think every single colleague has said. The sector needs clarity and resolution by October so that it can plan for the long term. We see that acutely in my constituency. Redditch is just down the road from Birmingham. Opposition Members have spoken about the unfairness of funding in urban areas. Households in Birmingham receive 27% more than households in my constituency, yet the deprivation needs are comparable on any indicator. The areas that some Opposition Members are speaking about are starting from a much higher base. That has to be taken into account in any calculations about fairness.
Yesterday, I met Councillor Simon Geraghty, the leader of Worcestershire County Council. He specifically wanted me to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), for listening to him on the specific issues facing  his council. It has had challenging and tough times, yet due to sensible and prudent management it is due to pass a budget. It will make savings and efficiencies, while being able to keep all the libraries open. I also recognise the hard work that it has put in, working with the district councils and Councillor Matt Dormer, to put together a unique bid that has gone into the business rates retention pilot in our area. That will deliver up to £4.9 million of additional funding, which can be spent on addressing some of the acute social care needs in Worcestershire, which is another area with an ageing population.
Local services are so important to my residents. I am sure I am not the only Member who, when I go door-knocking, finds that I get blamed for everything to do with local services as well as, of course, the national issues that consume us, such as Brexit. Often, local residents do not make any distinction. They just think that we are responsible for all of it, and indeed we are. That is why I am delighted that the hard work and the lobbying that we put in across Worcestershire has resulted in a reasonably good settlement for Worcestershire, which I welcome.
I will finish my remarks by touching on the town centre, which is of paramount importance to my constituents. Redditch is a new town. We are proud of our heritage. We want to cherish the beautiful areas that we have in our town centre, and yet, after eight years of Labour being in control of our district council, nothing has been done about that. The stark fact—shameful, I think—is that in eight years in control of Redditch Borough Council, Labour did not build a single home for social rent. We are already starting to do that, having taking control last year. I support that and want that work to go further.
My local council leader, Councillor Matt Dormer, is pulling together funding pots from the local enterprise partnership, the county council and various different places, including local government. Investment will be going into our town centre for the first time. We look forward to having those conversations and building a bright future for our town centres, which have been so long neglected under the Labour party in local government. We want to make a thriving and vibrant local economy, where people can feel free to start a business, invest and bring more revenue into our town, and where people can work and play and be proud, as they already are, to raise their families. I thank the Minister very much and I will vote for the settlement this evening.

Ruth George: In Derbyshire, we have seen a 60% reduction in our revenue support grant since 2010. Instead, we end up with short-term pots of funding. We have a Conservative county council that says it cannot spend its pothole money because it was given too late in the year. It has a better care fund that is £8 million underspent, in spite of huge cuts being made to our health services, including our voluntary services, in Derbyshire. Yesterday, the county council refused to refer that to the Secretary of State or to cover those cuts, which will make such a difference to our communities.
In the less than two years that I have been in this place, I have seen cuts to our libraries in Derbyshire—almost half the libraries have been transferred to community management, with no grant, and the rest of them have reduced hours—and our Sunday bus services have been cut,  so now at the weekend, the Peak District is overrun with cars. In our schools, one of the biggest issues that I see in my casework is children with special needs being deprived of the support they need. Parents have been battling against schools and schools have been battling against the local authority year on year. We have seen educational psychologists cut yet again, even though they are crucial to diagnosing autism and special needs. When parents have been able to get the support they need to take the county council to a tribunal, the county council has lost 39 out of 40 recent cases. However, parents are still struggling on to support their children, who are not getting the help that they need.
It is only going to get worse for families. In spite of rising numbers of children on child protection orders—up by over a quarter in two years—the number of children in care in Derbyshire has risen by 9% in nine months. However, the county council has just put forward its response to the consultation: it is going to cut two thirds of its early help staff—293 of the 400-odd staff will be cut. Its responsibility for supporting families will be transferred to schools, which are already struggling. Those with no at-risk children—largely in better-off areas —will be fine, but those in areas where children desperately need support will not be.
Our children’s centres have been cut and most of them closed while youth services are being abolished. In adult social care, contracts for care at home are constantly being whittled away and private providers are at their wit’s end. Areas of my constituency simply will not bid for care packages because they cannot balance the books. As a result, more elderly people are stuck in hospital desperate to come home. Careworkers are being transferred from two to three shifts, but they cannot continue on that basis.
Care homes are having their funding frozen and community alarm services are being cut for four fifths of those who use them. Learning disability services, respite breaks, and now a consultation on day centres—the cuts are endless, and they hit the most vulnerable, who are the people the Government claim to protect. In just 18 months, 2,700 people have been referred to court for collection of council tax, and 7% of households have been lumbered with court costs and bailiff fees. The Government are hitting the poorest, and we are all paying more.

Huw Merriman: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George). She described the challenges in Derbyshire much as I would describe those in East Sussex.
I want to thank all my district and county councillors, and indeed all my parish and town councillors, for their work. I spent eight years as a district councillor—I stood down the day I entered this place—and I think it essential that local government be well represented on both sides of the House. I also thank the ministerial team for listening to the lobbying and the concerns raised by me and my colleagues from East Sussex, which is to receive an extra 2.5%. We are also in the business rates retention pilot, which will mean a great deal to us.
We have a big challenge in East Sussex, although, in a way, it is a wonderful challenge. Some 28% of my constituents are over 65; the national average is 17%. A lot of people move to East Sussex to retire—for its  great quality of life—but the difficulty is that they tend to downsize and live in smaller houses, meaning that they require social care but do not pay as much council tax as people in counties such as Surrey.
If we are to reform social care, we must ask ourselves whether we want a state system, meaning that there is no postcode lottery as everything is funded equally through the NHS, or whether we go for more radical reform. In East Sussex, we cannot carry on as we are, going to Ministers each year and asking for more. They usually give more, for which I am grateful, but it feels hand to mouth to many of our councillors, who want longer-term certainty.
Social care has gone from a third of East Sussex County Council’s budget to 75%. We are not fixing holes in the road, because we are fixing people—or doing our best to. That should be our priority, but we need more if we are to be a success. We know that nationally, social care funding will need an additional £12 billion by 2030. If we continue as we are without reform, there will be a £6 billion hole. I hope that everyone in this place agrees that we will need more money and more reform.
In the last 20 years, we have had 12 Government papers, from both Labour and Conservative Governments, and five independent commissions, but we still have not had the reform we need. Surely it is in the gift of this place, where there is no real Government majority, for MPs to work together cross-party to deliver. We must have no more calling reform a death tax, as the Conservative party did, and no more calling it a dementia tax, as the Opposition did. We must work together now to find a solution. I am willing to do that, and I hope that others are as well.
I want to look at countries that have introduced reform. In Japan, where there was no state funding for social care until 2000—when it was recognised that there was a problem—over-40s pay an additional amount in their pay packets, but of course they started with a blank page. It is to Germany that we should look, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) rightly said. Its plan, introduced in 1994—he says 1995—was delivered with political consensus and has been a great success. People in work pay half, employers pay the other half, and the retired pay the full amount, which brings in the element of inter- generational fairness. The contribution rate is 2.5% of wages, payable to a ceiling, with those without children paying more. To take out £283 per month, or a maximum of £1,784, changes lives. The system has been reformed, too, as impairments have developed. It used to be based more on physical need; now it is based more on dementia and the mental side.
Long-term care is a social risk that requires social protection. Surely we can all come together and make that happen.

Jack Brereton: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am delighted by the success of Stoke-on-Trent’s pooled bid for 75% business rates retention. Increased rates retention fits the city’s ambition to be a prominent and notable success story of the Government’s localism  agenda, and will enable that ambition to be realised. Stoke-on-Trent is on the up, and the city council has set out a compelling strategic vision to keep it that way, working closely with local partners across Staffordshire. Challenges remain, but after decades of decline under Labour there is huge local support for the growing prosperity of our proud city and an appetite for locally driven change, with local business and employment opportunities being given the boost that they need.
People wanted to see improved living standards, and since the Government took office in 2015, local Conservatives, in coalition with independents, have indeed delivered positive change. We have upped the ambition for the city, making close-run, enthusiastically supported bids for the title of city of culture and for a Channel 4 hub. We have a heritage zone in Longton, money from the transforming cities fund to improve local transport, and the Ceramic Valley enterprise zone.
Fully realising the city’s ambition requires local people of all ages to gain directly, and be seen to gain directly, from the implementation of pro-business, pro-development policies. Getting more out of what we put in is a fundamental requirement for improved ambition and productivity in the Potteries and in Staffordshire more generally. We are determined to share the proceeds of local growth locally, generating the levels of support that we need to continue our ambitions for redevelopment and greater prosperity for our city. The hard work done by the council in recent years has seen Stoke-on-Trent recognised in independent assessments as one of the best places in the United Kingdom in which to start a new enterprise.
Local authorities have a vital role in making high streets and towns places where people want to be. Rates retention is an important reform because it ensures that authorities have a direct financial incentive to improve the sense of place and sense of destination, encourages more people to live in town centres such as Longton and Fenton, and encourages more small businesses to move into spaces that are currently vacant. Initiatives such as the future high streets fund are essential additions. We must incentivise property owners to convert their empty buildings so that they can serve new and creative uses. I certainly hope that our bid for that funding will be successful.
Brownfield land is a significant issue in Stoke-on-Trent, a legacy of our past industrial decline. I was pleased to meet my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and representatives of Homes England recently to discuss some of the challenges involved. Decontaminating land to make it fit for house building can prove highly expensive. Much of it consists of smaller urban sites, and larger house builders are unwilling to take them on. The challenges are often left with smaller developers, who frequently struggle to swallow the high risk.
A focus on local business growth is particularly important in cities like Stoke-on-Trent, because the residential council tax base is low. The reality of our housing offer locally means that council tax alone will never allow us to keep pace with the growing and necessary demands on the public purse from, for instance, social care. What we are doing locally is seeking alternative ways of generating revenue to help to fund services. That will make us more self-sufficient, unlike Labour’s approach, about which we heard earlier. It would only saddle our constituents with more borrowing and more taxes, which we cannot afford.

Jim McMahon: We have not heard a great deal today. We expected, perhaps, a rabbit to be pulled out of a hat. Word had it that the Prime Minister had a few quid to give out, but we have not seen much of that today. It could have been used in a morally just way: it could have been sent to the areas that have suffered the biggest cuts although they also suffer the most significant deprivation. Those areas have been targeted by the Government, as has been set out today in the many speeches made by Labour Members in particular.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said that people now questioned why they were paying council tax at all, given that the neighbourhood services that they received were being reduced. My hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Dame Louise Ellman), for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) made the same points about the human cost of removing vital public services. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) outlined the very real community impact of austerity and the Government’s targeting of our communities. Through to my hon. Friends the Members for Redcar (Anna Turley) and for High Peak (Ruth George), we heard story after story of the human and community cost of austerity.
What shift did we get from the Government? Absolutely none. Why? This has not happened by accident, and the Government will not suddenly wake up and realise that they have made a horrible mistake. The policy has been deliberate and targeted from day one. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said:
“In England, cuts have been much larger for poorer, more grant-dependent councils than their richer neighbours.”
Why?
“This pattern arose directly from the way central Government allocated grants.”
That was deliberate and targeted and it has not stopped today. Despite our calls and our outlining the real human cost, the policy continues.

Jim Cunningham: If the Government were serious about helping women and bringing an end to austerity, they could have funded local authorities to give free bus passes to the women they robbed of their pensions. Surely they could have done something like that.

Jim McMahon: The Government have been very good at shifting money from those who need it most to areas that will secure the support of their Back Benchers. How many times today have we heard Conservative Back Benchers praising their Front Benchers and thanking them for giving in to their lobbying? So much back patting has gone on as Government Members congratulate each other on taking food off the tables of the poorest in society to shift funding to the richest.
We have heard time and again from Conservative Members how much more expensive services are in rural areas. There is no doubt that some services are more expensive to deliver in rural areas by unit cost. However, let us look at the evidence. In 2014, the Government  commissioned a report that examined every single service that local authorities deliver throughout England. It showed that it is true that some, but only 15%, of services are more expensive in rural areas. In urban areas, 31% of services are more expensive, and whether areas are urban or rural has no bearing on the delivery of 50% of services. The evidence therefore shows that services are more expensive to deliver in urban areas. That is because the deprivation is ingrained and generational. It is tied to the local economies, and councils are there to try to keep it all together.
When our communities have asked for hope and direction, what have they been given? Not even warm words or an acknowledgement of the human cost. Now more than a million older people do not get the social care they would have got in 2010. Children who are at risk of violence and abuse are not given the protection they need, because the Government have walked away and said that it is nothing to do with them. It is everything to do with them. When other Departments were fighting their corner, where was the Ministry? When austerity first struck, local government was hit hardest. We have lost 800,000 members of staff from local government. We have the lowest number of staff since comparable records began, yet the central Government workforce is the largest since comparable records began. Local government has taken more of a hit than any other Department. Within local government, Labour-controlled areas have taken the hit, and that is politically motivated.
The Government had the chance to put this right today. They have failed to be fair and just, and failed the people we come into this place to serve. Shame on the lot of you.

Rishi Sunak: It is a pleasure to close the debate. I start by joining my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), in paying tribute to all the committed people who work in local government and deliver for their communities every single day. We are all grateful to them for their hard work and dedication. I thank all hon. Members for their passionate speeches today, particularly those who brought their personal experience of local government to the Chamber—our debates are the richer for that. Although I may not agree with the content of Labour Members’ speeches, I respect the passion with which they represent their local communities.
As a northern MP, I feel that the north is lucky to have, in my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson), a champion for the northern powerhouse. He is committed to pushing the Government on rebalancing the economy and working constructively with them. That sentiment was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), who spoke well about the importance of economic regeneration in his constituency and what the Government are doing to support his residents as they look to a brighter future.
My hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) and for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) made excellent speeches about the need for all Members and all local authorities to think about how we can serve our constituents better and at cheaper cost every  single day. We should always strive for ways to achieve that, given that the taxes that fund our public services are paid through their hard work and efforts. My hon. Friends the Members for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and for Waveney (Peter Aldous) do a great job in this Chamber of representing their district council and county council respectively, and I thank them for all their engagement with me and the Department over the few months in which I have had this job. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby that the Secretary of State is well aware of the excessive activity of a few councils with respect to borrowing for commercialisation, and this is something that the Department is actively looking at as we speak to the Treasury.
Many Conservative Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), for Gloucester (Richard Graham), for Lewes, for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for Waveney, for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) and for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), made powerful and compelling cases for a root-and-branch review of how we distribute money in local government today. We heard about the specific issues that councils face on the ground that our current funding formula simply does not capture. I pay tribute to their work in bringing this to my attention and that of officials. They mentioned issues such as the rapidly changing demographics that are driving up demand for adult social care. These are the kinds of things that a new formula fit for the 21st century should absolutely cover, and I look forward to working with all of them as we develop a funding formula that is right for every part of this country.
My hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South, for Thirsk and Malton and for Bexhill and Battle spoke of the absolute importance of getting adult social care right. I know that my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care are committed to doing exactly that, and I agree that the solutions should be radical, not statist. I hope that they will include consideration of the excellent work of the Select Committee.
Three themes have run through the speeches that I have heard in the debate, and they are the three things that everyone agrees that our local councils do: first, they support the most vulnerable in our society; secondly, they drive economic growth in their areas; and, thirdly, they build strong communities. I am proud to say that this Government are backing them to do all three. It is local authorities whose hands are the first to reach out to those who fall on hard times, and I am delighted that this settlement provides them with a real-terms increase in financial resources to support that vital work.
Councils told us that the most acute pressure that they faced was in adult and children’s social care, so this Government responded with £650 million in incremental funding in the Budget. Councils told us that they wanted to do more to support people with disabilities, so this Government responded with an extra £55 million to make vital home adaptations. Rural councils highlighted their particular challenges, so this Government responded by maintaining the rural services grant at record levels. But Conservative Members measure success not by how much money we spend, but by how many lives we are changing, so we are supporting local authorities to  innovate and improve to ensure that we are careful with taxpayers’ hard-earned money and that people are getting the best possible services.
In children’s care, where there is a huge variation in performance, we are investing £84 million to spread best practice from Leeds, Hertfordshire and North Yorkshire across the country so that children everywhere will benefit from best-in-class practice. In technology, we recently launched an innovation fund to support councils in embracing the digital revolution. Working with the Local Government Association, we are developing a tool to help councils to benchmark, analyse and drive performance. Across local government, whenever there are opportunities to improve lives, save money and transform services, this Government will be relentless in pursuing them.
The Government understand that the only sustainable way to pay for our public services is to create the economic growth that will fund them. Let us not forget the vital role that councils play in creating prosperity for their communities. Rather than being reliant on central Government handouts, local authorities should be empowered and rewarded for their entrepreneurship. I am pleased to say that our business rates retention scheme does exactly that, and local authorities are expected to retain almost £2.5 billion of business rates growth this year. Across the nation, from Yorkshire to Southampton, our 15 new business rates retention pilots demonstrate this Government’s commitment to backing councils’ ambitions for their local economies. We all know that the enemy of that growth is the higher taxes that the Labour party would inflict on our residents.
Local authorities are key to strengthening our communities. Every single day, they ensure that people are proud of the places in which they live. Those communities must start with the houses that people call home, so this Government are backing local authorities to fulfil those people’s aspirations. The new homes bonus part of the settlement has awarded councils almost £8 billion since it started for 1.5 million additional homes that they have brought forward, each one providing incentive and rewards for those councils that are trying to ensure that every one of their residents can fulfil the dream of homeownership.
However, local authorities told us that they want more. They want greater flexibility to build more of their own homes, so this Government listened and lifted the housing revenue account borrowing cap. Strong communities also need vibrant high streets, so this Government are trusting local councils with a £675 million fund to transform and revitalise our town centres. Finally, when it comes to our communities, the only holes that I want to be pouring money down are the ones on our local roads, so this Government were pleased to ensure that councils have £420 million to fill potholes for our motorists. From homes to roads to high streets, this Government are backing local authorities to create communities where everyone can thrive.
We have heard a lot about deprivation today, and there was an accusation that this Government are somehow trying to massage the numbers. When we put together the new funding formula, we listened to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee report that was published at the end of 2017, which made a compelling case for reducing the number of indicators to fund local government without sacrificing accuracy.  That is exactly what our funding formula does. Deprivation accounts for less than 4% of the variation in spend for universal services—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I need to hear what the Minister has to say. I am sure that he is nearly at the end.

Rishi Sunak: We heard a lot about Liverpool and a lot about Surrey. Members of this House should know that households in Liverpool have £400 more to spend on local services than households in Surrey. Only a third of spending in Liverpool is financed by council tax versus almost 85% in Surrey. This funding formula is accurate and based on the facts.
In conclusion, I will continue to listen to local councils to learn from their expertise and to champion their cause across Whitehall. I tell them that their voice is heard loud and clear and that they will be supported by this Government. I commend the settlement to the House.
Question put.
The House proceeded to Division.

Lindsay Hoyle: I remind the House that the motion is subject to double-majority voting: of the whole House and of Members representing constituencies in England
The House divided:
Ayes 298270, Noes 240208.

The House having divided: Ayes 298, Noes 240.
Votes cast by Members for constituencies in England: Ayes 270, Noes 208.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2019–20 (HC 1916), which was laid before this House on 29 January, be approved.
More than three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Order, 31 January).
Resolved,
That the Report on Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Alternative Notional Amounts) (England) 2019-20 (HC 1917), which was laid before this House on 29 January, be approved.—(James Brokenshire.)
Resolved,
That the Report on Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) 2019–20 (HC 1918), which was laid before this House on 29 January, be approved.—(James Brokenshire.)

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Lindsay Hoyle: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 4 to 11 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Income Tax

That the draft Devolved Income Tax Rates (Consequential Amendments) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 10 December 2018, be approved.

Data Protection

That the draft Data Protection (Charges and Information) (Amendment) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 17 December 2018, be approved.

Exiting the European Union (Building and Buildings)

That the draft Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 18 December 2018, be approved.

Exiting the European Union (Professional Qualifications)

That the draft Recognition of Professional Qualifications (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 19 December 2018, be approved.

Exiting the European Union (Financial Services)

That the draft Solvency 2 and Insurance (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 8 January, be approved.
That the draft Insurance Distribution (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 19 December 2018, be approved.
That the draft Financial Conglomerates and Other Financial Groups (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 17 January, be approved.

Exiting the European Union (Companies)

That the draft Companies, Limited Liability Partnerships and Partnerships (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 10 January, be approved.—(Jeremy Quin.)
Question agreed to.

Lindsay Hoyle: There are a large number of petitions to be presented and I hope that it will be of assistance to the House if I set out how we shall proceed. Once the first petition relating to the future of maintained nursery schools has been read to the House with its prayer, subsequent petitions on the same topic should not be read out in full. Members should give a brief description of the number and the location of petitioners and state that the petition is in the same terms. Members presenting more than one petition should present them together. When Lucy Powell has presented her petition, she should proceed to the Table and hand her first petition to the Clerk, who will read out the title in the usual way. For subsequent petitions, Members should proceed directly to the petitions bag at the back of the Chair. I shall call the next Member immediately after the previous Member has finished speaking. At the expiry of half an hour, no further petitions may be presented orally, but they may be placed in the petitions bag, and I will record them as formally presented. I now call Lucy Powell to present her petition.

PETITION - THE FUTURE OF MAINTAINED NURSERY SCHOOLS

Lucy Powell: I rise to present petitions on behalf of nursery schools across England, and will be joined by many colleagues. I thank them and nurseries across the country for their campaigning work.
Petitions presented today are on behalf of thousands of parents, teachers, governors and local people who value and use these maintained nursery schools. The petitioners raise concerns about the future viability of maintained nursery schools. One third of their funding is due to end next April—that is the next academic year. Without continued supplementary funding or a long-term solution to sustainable funding, many nurseries could close, and many are already taking staffing and place decisions for next year.
These nurseries are the jewel in the crown of our education system, boosting social mobility and eliminating the development gap between poorer pupils and their peers’ pre-school. Some 98% are outstanding or good and two thirds are in the most deprived areas of the country. Warm words are not enough from Ministers; we now need action.
The first petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons to urge the Government to take action to ensure nursery schools are financially sustainable for the future.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Triangle, maintained nursery school in Lambeth,
Declares that we are concerned about the future of maintained nursery schools in England after March 2020 as no guarantee has been given by the Government that adequate funding will continue when supplementary funding ends.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons to urge the Government to take action to ensure nursery schools are financially sustainable for the future.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002370]
The other petitions are:
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Walton Lane maintained nursery school in Nelson, Lancashire.
[P002371]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of College Green Nursery School, maintained nursery school in Brent.
[P002372]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Bognor Regis maintained nursery school in West Sussex.
[P002373]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Oxclose Community Nursery School a maintained nursery school in Washington, Sunderland.
[P002374]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Kingswood maintained nursery school in Watford, Hertfordshire.
[P002375]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Maidenhead Nursery School in Windsor and Maidenhead.
[P002376]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Kenilworth Nursery School in Kenilworth.
[P002377]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Maytree maintained nursery school in Lambeth.
[P002378]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Holmewood maintained nursery school in Lambeth.
[P002379]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of The Lawns maintained nursery school in Windsor.
[P002380]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Hedon Nursery School in East Riding of Yorkshire.
[P002381]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Grosvenor maintained nursery school in Bolton.
[P002382]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Usworth Colliery maintained nursery school in Washington Tyne and Wear.
[P002383]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Beverley Manor Nursery school in East Riding of Yorkshire.
[P002384]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Northfleet Nursery in Gravesend.
[P002385]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of West Heath Nursery in Birmingham.
[P002386]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Wyndham Park maintained nursery school in Grantham.
[P002387]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Hollywood Park maintained nursery school in Stockport.
[P002388]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Lanterns, maintained nursery school in Winchester, Hampshire.
[P002389]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Cookham, maintained nursery school in Cookham.
[P002390]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Douglas Valley Nursery School, maintained nursery school in Wigan.
[P002391]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Chichester, maintained nursery school in West Sussex.
[P002392]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Pennywell Early Years Centre, maintained nursery school in Sunderland.
[P002393]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Hylton Red House Nursery School, maintained nursery school in Sunderland.
[P002394]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Filton Avenue, maintained nursery school in Bristol.
[P002395]

Theresa Villiers: I would like to present three petitions in the same terms, on behalf of 1,107 residents of the Chipping Barnet constituency, concerning St Margaret’s Nursery School, Hampden Way Nursery School and the Barnet Early Years Alliance. I also highlight a petition in the same terms concerning Moss Hall Nursery School that is being submitted this evening by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer).
The petition of the parents, carers and staff of Hampden Way Nursery School, maintained nursery school in Barnet.
[P002353]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff of St Margaret’s Nursery School, maintained nursery school in Barnet.

PETITION - NONE[P002354]

The petition of the parents, carers and staff of BEYA - Brookhill Nursery, maintained nursery school in Barnet.
[P002355]

Gareth Thomas: I rise to present a petition in the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), from the parents, carers, staff and governors of the wonderful Hillview Nursery School in Britain’s best constituency, Harrow West. Almost 100 people have signed the petition.
The petition of parents, carers, staff and governors of Hillview Nursery maintained nursery school in Harrow.
[P002312]

Pat McFadden: I would like to present petitions from parents, carers and staff at Windsor Nursery School and Phoenix Nursery School—both in Wolverhampton South East—in the same terms as those presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell).
The petition of parents, carers, staff and governors of Windsor maintained nursery school in Wolverhampton.
[P002314]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Phoenix maintained nursery schools in Wolverhampton.
[P002321]

Derek Twigg: I would like to present a petition on behalf of Ditton Nursery School and Warrington Road Nursery School, which has been signed by parents, carers and staff at those schools. I do so on the same basis as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell).
The petition of the parents, carers and staff of Ditton/Warrington Road maintained nursery schools in Halton.
[P002313]

Marsha de Cordova: I would like to present a petition—signed by parents from Somerset Nursery School, along with teachers and governors—in the same terms.
The petition of the parents, carers and staff of Somerset nursery school maintained nursery schools in Wandsworth, London.
[P002315]

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi: I rise to present petitions in the same terms about the future of maintained nursery schools. I have received over 1,600 signatures from these nurseries.
The petition of the parents, carers and staff of Cippenham maintained nursery school in Slough.
[P002316]
The petition of the parents, carers and staff of Baylis Court Nursery School maintained nursery schools in Slough.
[P002317]
The petition of the parents, carers and staff of Lea Nursery School maintained nursery school in Slough.
[P002318]
The petition of the parents, carers and staff of Chalvey Nursery School maintained Nursery School in Slough.
[P002327]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors and supporters of Slough centre nursery maintained nursery school in Slough Berkshire.
[P002344]

Thangam Debbonaire: I rise to present petitions in the same terms from the wonderful St Werburgh’s Park Nursery School; the wonderful Redcliffe Nursery School and children’s centre in Redcliffe; and the wonderful St Philip’s Marsh Nursery School, Barton Hill children’s centre and Cashmore early years centre, also in Bristol.
The petition of the Parents, Careers, Staff and Governors of Redcliffe Children’s Centre maintained nursery school in Bristol.
[P002319]
The petition of the Parents, Careers, Staff and Governors of St Philip’s Marsh Nursery School (and Cashmore Early Years Centre/Barton Hill Children’s Centre) maintained nursery school in Bristol.
[P002320]
The petition of the Parents, Careers, Staff and Governors of St Werburgh’s Park maintained nursery school in Bristol.
[P002322]

Jack Dromey: I rise to present a petition in the same terms on behalf of four remarkable nursery schools in Birmingham, Erdington: Castle Vale, Featherstone, Marsh Hill, and Osborne. It is signed by 1,500 people.
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Featherstone maintained nursery school in Erdington, Birmingham and Marsh Mill nursery school, Osborne nursery school and Castle Vale nursery school in Birmingham.
[P002324]

Matt Rodda: I rise to present petitions on behalf of three outstanding nursery schools in Reading East: Caversham, Newbridge, and Blagdon.
The petition of the parents, careers, staff and governors of Caversham maintained nursery school in Reading.
[P002325]

Louise Ellman: I rise to present the petition from 85 parents, carers and staff of the much-valued Abercromby Nursery School in Liverpool. It is vital that adequate funding is provided for this facility, which has enriched so many young lives.
The petition of the parents, carers and staff of Abercromby Nursery School maintained Nursery School in Liverpool.
[P002328]

Julie Cooper: I rise to present a petition in the same terms on behalf of six outstanding nursery schools of Burnley.
The petition of the parents, careers, staff and governors of Whitegate Nursery School, Padiham.
[P002329]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Ightenhill maintained nursery school in Burnley.
[P002340]
The petition of the parents, carers and staff of Basnett Street Nursery School maintained nursery school in Burnley.
[P002342]
The petition of the parents, carers and staff of Rockwood maintained nursery school in Burnley, Lancashire.
[P002343]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Rosegrove Nursery School maintained nursery school in Burnley.
[P002345]
The petition of the parents, carers and staff of Reedley Hallows maintained nursery school in Burnley, Lancashire.
[P002346]

Craig Tracey: I would like to present a petition on behalf of parents, carers and staff of the fantastic Bedworth Heath and Atherstone maintained nursery schools in the same terms. It has 89 signatures.
The petition of the parents, careers, staff and governors of Atherstone maintained nursery school in Atherstone, Warwickshire.
[P002351]

Marcus Jones: I rise to present a petition in the same terms on behalf of 116 constituents in support of the excellent Stockingford Nursery School in Nuneaton.
The petition of the parents, careers, staff and governors of Stockingford Nursery maintained nursery school in Nuneaton.
[P002326]

Daniel Zeichner: I present five petitions in the same terms on behalf of many, many thousands of residents—parents, guardians, staff and communities of nursery schools in Cambridgeshire.
The petition of the parents, carers staff, governors and local community of Homerton Early Years Centre maintained nursery school in Cambridgeshire.
[P002330]
The petition of the parents, carers staff, governors and local community of Colleges Nursery School maintained nursery school in Cambridgeshire.
[P002332]
The petition of the parents, carers staff and governors of Brunswick maintained nursery school in Cambridgeshire.
[P002333]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Histon Early Years Centre maintained nursery school in Histon, Cambridgeshire.
[P002334]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff, governors and local community of The Fields Children Centre maintained nursery school in Cambridgeshire.
[P002335]

Yvonne Fovargue: I rise to present a petition in the same terms on behalf of the parents, carers and staff of the outstanding Hindley Nursery School in the constituency of Makerfield. There are 125 signatures.
The petition of the parents, carers and staff of Hindley Nursery School maintained nursery school in Makerfield.
[P002339]

Preet Kaur Gill: I rise to present a petition in the same terms from parents, carers, staff and governors of the brilliant Lillian de Lissa Nursery School in Birmingham, Edgbaston.
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Lillian de Lissa maintained nursery school in Birmingham.
[P002348]

Steve McCabe: I rise to present two petitions in the same terms signed by over 400 people on behalf of Highters Heath Nursery School in Billesley and Allens Croft Nursery School in Brandwood in my constituency.
The petition of the parents, careers, staff and governors of Allens Croft maintained nursery school in King Heath Birmingham.
[P002341]
The petition of the parents, careers, staff and governors of Highters Heath maintained nursery school in Warstock, Birmingham.
[P002347]

Graham Jones: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) for all the work that she has done on this. I rise to present a petition in the same terms as everybody else for the outstanding Lee Royd Nursery School in my constituency, in south Accrington.
The petition of the parents, carers and staff of Lee Royd Nursery School maintained nursery school in Accrington.
[P002349]

Richard Benyon: In the same terms, I present a petition on behalf of parents, carers and supporters of Victoria Park Nursery School in Newbury and Hungerford Nursery School in Hungerford, both maintained nursery schools, in the same terms as others.
The petition of the parents, careers, staff and governors of Victoria Park and Hungerford Nursery School maintained nursery school in West Berkshire.
[P002338]

Liz McInnes: I rise to present in the same terms a petition on behalf of our one remaining maintained nursery school in my constituency, the wonderful Sunny Brow Nursery School. It has been signed by 238 constituents.
The petition of the parents, careers, staff and governors of Sunny Brow maintained nursery school in Middleton.
[P002350]

Harriet Harman: I rise to present petitions in the same terms as my hon. Friends from parents, carers, staff and governors of three highly valued nursery schools in my constituency: Nell Gwynn Nursery School, Ann Bernard Nursery School,   and The Grove children and family centre. They are all hugely valued by the over 279 people who have signed the petition.
The petition of the parents, careers, staff, governors and our local community contacts of The Grove Children and Family Centre which is a maintained nursery school in Southwark.
[P002363]
The petition of the parents, careers, staff and governors of Nell Gwynn Nursery, maintained nursery school in Southwark.
[P002364]

Matt Western: I rise to present petitions in the same terms and on behalf of 211 constituents for the excellent Warwick Nursery School and 174 constituents for the equally superb Whitnash Nursery School.
The petition of the parents, carers and staff of Whitnash maintained Nursery School in Leamington Spa.
[P002365]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Warwick Nursery School, maintained nursery school in Warwick.
[P002366]

Tim Loughton: I am Spartacus, and I rise to present a petition in the same terms, signed by 170 parents, carers, staff and governors of the outstanding Boundstone maintained nursery school in Lancing in my constituency.
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Boundstone maintained Nursery school in Lancing, West Sussex.
[P002367]

Bridget Phillipson: I would like to present four petitions in the same terms, on behalf of parents, carers and staff at Hetton-le-Hole Nursery School, Hetton Lyons Nursery School, Houghton Community Nursery School and Mill Hill Nursery School in Houghton and Sunderland South.
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Hetton Lyons maintained nursery school in Sunderland.
[P002357]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Mill Hill maintained nursery school in Doxford Park, Sunderland.
[P002358]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Houghton Community maintained nursery school in Houghton-le-Spring, Sunderland.
[P002359]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Hetton-le-Hole maintained nursery school in Sunderland.
[P002360]

Vicky Foxcroft: I would like to present a petition in the same terms on behalf of the wonderful Clyde Nursery School and the wonderful Chelwood Nursery School in my constituency, which have collected well over 200 signatures between them.
The petition of the parents, carers and staff of Clyde Nursery School, maintained nursery school in Lewisham.
[P002362]

Ian Mearns: I rise to present a petition in the same terms on behalf of parents, staff, governors and supporters of the exemplary and only stand-alone maintained nursery school in the Borough of Gateshead: Bensham Grove Community Nursery School.
The petition of the parents of Bensham Grove Community maintained nursery school in Gateshead.
[P002361]

Karen Lee: I rise to present a petition in the same terms on behalf of St Giles maintained nursery school in Lincoln—an amazing, priceless school that supports families in so many different ways. I dare not begin to think how Lincoln would manage without it.
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of St Giles maintained nursery school in Lincoln.
[P002356]

Gavin Shuker: I rise to present six petitions in the same terms, three from my constituency—Chapel Street, Hart Hill and Rothesay—and, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), Gill Blowers, Grasmere and Pastures Way nursery schools.
The petition of the parents, carers and staff of Chapel Street, Gill Blowers, Grasmere, Hart Hill, Pastures Way and Rothesay maintained nursery schools in Luton.
[P002352]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Rothesay maintained nursery school in Luton.
[P002408]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Chapel Street maintained nursery school in Luton.
[P002417]

Vicky Ford: I rise to present a petition in the same terms on behalf of 131 parents, carers, staff and governors of the exceptional Tanglewood Nursery School in Chelmsford, in God’s own county of Essex.
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Tanglewood maintained nursery school in Chelmsford.
[P002400]

Margaret Beckett: I rise to present petitions in the same terms on behalf of two nursery schools in my constituency that are both doing a fantastic job in very difficult conditions: Lord Street Nursery School and Harrington Nursery School.
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Harrington Nursery School, maintained nursery school in Derby City.
[P002368]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Lord Street Community Nursery, maintained nursery school in Derby South.
[P002369]

Anneliese Dodds: I rise to present a petition in the same terms from the excellent Grandpont Nursery School in Oxford.
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Grandpont, maintained nursery school in Oxford.
[P002396]

Children’s Social Care: Rotherham

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Iain Stewart.)

Sarah Champion: I am grateful for the chance to hold this debate because I need the Minister to hear about and understand the unique situation facing Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council with regard to children’s services. The debate is also timely, as we have just debated the local government finance report.
I am sure the Minister agrees that there is no more important topic to be debated than the safeguarding of children and securing them a positive future. Local authorities up and down the country are struggling to fund their children’s social care services in the light of cuts since 2010, and Rotherham is no different. In real terms, the funding for Rotherham’s budget since 2013-14 has been reduced by 74%—a cut of more than £62 million. The Government have told councils such as Rotherham that they are making “significant additional resources” available to support children’s social care, but that funding is primarily for innovation and does not redress the shortfall in core funding affecting so many local authorities.
The depletion in available resources has been compounded by a rising demand for children’s social care services. Rotherham council has experienced a dramatic rise in demand since 2015. There has been a significant increase in the number of children in receipt of statutory social work intervention at all levels—children in need, child protection and children in care. Nationally, the number of child protection inquiries has increased by 158% in 10 years, from 77,000 in 2007-08 to 198,000 in 2017-18.
Like other authorities across the country, Rotherham has experienced a significant increase in demand. In Rotherham, as of December 2018, the number of children on a child protection plan was 562, and the number of children in need was 1,447. In Rotherham, the number of children in care has risen from 407 children in March 2015 to 634 in December 2018, well above the national average increase. Rotherham has experienced the third highest increase in numbers in 2017-18 out of 152 local authorities in England. Let us remember that the average annual cost of care, based on placement cost alone, for a looked-after child in Rotherham is £54,000 per child.
A significant contribution to this dramatic increase is the impact of Operation Stovewood, the National Crime Agency investigation into past child sexual exploitation in Rotherham by grooming gangs. The investigation is unique, and it is the largest operation the NCA has ever carried out.

Kevin Barron: My hon. Friend will remember that in May last year I stood up at Prime Minister’s Question Time and asked the Prime Minister about further funding bid for Fusion, which had only 30% of the original funding. This bid is to help to support the survivors of CSE and to pursue convictions against the perpetrators. Is it her understanding, as it is mine, that no further Fusion project money has gone into Rotherham?

Sarah Champion: Sadly, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This was a multi-agency hub for survivors, and the council argued in the strongest terms the need for such multi-agency working, as did the National Crime Agency, but no, the money has not been forthcoming.
Operation Stovewood has placed unprecedented and unbudgeted additional pressures on the authority. The council estimates the investigation is currently costing an additional £4.3 million per year, which is estimated to increase to £7 million next year, yet only £500,000 per annum of additional money has been forthcoming. The decades of sexual abuse in Rotherham and other towns has been a great shame on this nation. If there had been an earthquake affecting the lives of 1,400 children in Rotherham, we would have got emergency funding from the Government to help with their recovery. However, with no such money forthcoming for child abuse, we are largely leaving victims and survivors to get on with the recovery themselves.

Jim Shannon: May I first put on the record our thanks to the hon. Lady for all that she does in this sector? It is a very difficult sector to work in—it is very difficult to put forward the stories she puts forward—but she does it admirably well. I think this House is indebted to her, and in particular her constituents should be very proud to have her as their MP.
Does the hon. Lady not agree that social services throughout the United Kingdom are teetering on the brink of collapse? While we are debating this issue in this Chamber, there are children throughout the United Kingdom right now who are sitting in neglected homes, with no one to turn to and no hope as they slip through the net. Does she not believe that it is past time that we secured—we look to the Minister very gently and very honestly as we say this—the additional funding and training to enable the system to handle the vast volume of children who need someone to advocate for them as they scream in silence?

Sarah Champion: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, and I completely agree with the points he makes. We are storing up a national disaster if we do not support these children, ideally with early intervention, or with whatever help they need throughout their lives. I ask the Minister: please will he agree to invest additional resources in supporting looked-after children and care leavers—yes, in Rotherham, but also across the country—so that they can get the proper support they need to repair their lives?
Rotherham council is doing the very best it can. Ofsted gave Rotherham high praise in its 2018 inspection report, which I would like to quote. It said:
“Improved identification of risk and continued focus on uncovering and tackling complex abuse have led to increased demands on social care. A recent increase in the numbers of children looked after has placed additional demands on placements. Some of this increase is due to improvements in identifying risk, and to the local authority’s complex abuse work.”
It went on to say that the council had plans in place to address the demand:
“They are not complacent in the approach they take in order to better understand, continue to identify, and address the large-scale serious abuse suffered by children and young people. Managers, leaders and partners are diligent in their ongoing efforts to expose both current and historic exploitation. This is seen in the number of successful prosecutions and ongoing court trials of perpetrators.  Support to encourage children and young people who have suffered abuse helps them to feel safe enough to disclose their experiences and continues to develop. This includes services for those who are now adults. The stringent efforts of the local authority and partners to confront large-scale exploitation and abuse will continue to have its challenges, as victims continue to be identified.”
I agree with the Ofsted report.
The council has committed to implementing successful evidence-based programmes and has invested nearly £1 million of its own funding in innovative programmes alone. Recent analysis found that its expenditure on children’s social care has increased 90% between 2010 and 2016, compared with an average of 30% for other English local authorities. But the flip side of providing the level of care needed is the amount of extra funding for children’s social care services that the council has had to find to meet escalating demand. The council increased the children’s services budget by £20 million in 2016-17, but as demand continues to increase further, Rotherham borough council forecasts an overall £16 million overspend for children and young people’s services for the current financial year. That leaves the council yet again in the position of having to find even more funding from its own resources, and it is further increasing the children’s social care budget in 2019-20 by a net £7 million, making a total annual investment of £27 million over and above the 2015-16 budget.

Tim Loughton: I congratulate the hon. Lady not only on this debate but on the enormous amount of work that she has done in this area. Does she agree that the most expensive thing is getting it wrong? That has been borne out in Rotherham and in other high-profile cases. The fear is that the money now going in to mop up the problems after getting it wrong—the intensive care for sexual-predator victims historically—is now taking up all the resources, so that there is a shortage of resources for the preventive work needed to make sure that children do not get into such dangers in the future. It is a false economy to take our eye off that ball while mopping up the problems of the past.

Sarah Champion: The hon. Gentleman is right: it is short-term and does not address the underlying problems that the early intervention of good social work can do to prevent such escalation and the costs associated with it—not only the financial costs, but the costs to the individual.
With the exception of £3.4 million of one-off support from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in 2015-16 and the £500,000 of annual funding provided for Stovewood, the council has had to fund these increased costs by making savings on other services and prioritising resources for children’s services. The additional funding announced for social care in the autumn Budget and earlier today is insufficient to support the extraordinary levels of demand on councils across the country.
The Chancellor’s recent announcement of an £85 million fund to assist councils with rising numbers of children in care is welcome, but the Department for Education has indicated that this money is likely to go to local authorities that Ofsted deems to be requiring improvement. Rotherham, which has worked so hard to improve itself, now has a service deemed good. Because of its success, it is being punished and is unlikely to get Government  support. That simply is not fair. The current funding system rewards failure, not levels of need. Will the Minister clarify if any of the £85 million will go to councils which have good or outstanding Ofsted ratings? If not, will he justify the rationale for denying support to those councils, regardless of the number of children they have in care?
Rotherham council has worked so hard to make its service a success, even in the light of drastic cuts, but how long can it and other councils be expected to maintain standards in such a difficult climate? Rotherham council has studied the reasons behind the rise in numbers of children in receipt of social work services, and in particular the numbers of children in care. It has found that when early intervention is not available or not properly co-ordinated, children do not receive the right intervention at the right time. Consequently, concerns have then escalated to the point where children have been taken into care, which is costly to the state and devastating to the child.
As funding has dried up, councils have found themselves in a double bind. Required under statute to deliver services to children most at risk of harm and children in care, resources have been concentrated to the extent that the Local Government Association finds that 73% of children’s social care funding is now spent in just those areas. Of course, providing funding for the most vulnerable is the right thing to do. However, the reduction has driven a reduction in council spending on universal services such as Sure Start and early help, which so often provide the light-touch early intervention that can identify concerns and support families before crisis point is reached. I therefore beseech the Minister to recognise the value in children’s care services and recognise that every child in this country deserves an opportunity to thrive, and that that takes persistent sustained and ambitious intervention from Government to achieve. Councils will be £3 billion short by 2025 if they maintain current service levels. Will the Minister agree today to ask the Chancellor to meet this shortfall in the spending review?
I am also concerned that there is insufficient support for teenagers and young adults as they transition out of social care, often without the support of parents or carers. In Rotherham, girls who were sexually abused as children have previously fallen through the gaps as they reach the age of maturity and statutory support falls away. Despite exploitation continuing beyond their 18th birthday, society turns its back and instead blames the victim and accuses them of making damaging lifestyle choices, rather than seeing them as vulnerable people in need of support.
Support for 16 and 17-year-olds and care leavers must be improved. Children’s Society research has unsurprisingly found that vulnerabilities in childhood can intensify into early adulthood if left unchecked. The Department for Education’s own research shows that children receiving statutory support from children’s services do less well at school and are the most likely group to end up NEET—not in education, employment or training—in early adulthood. Will the Minister therefore commit to reviewing the support available for 16 and 17-year-old children in need as they make the difficult move into adulthood?
The Minister knows that excellent social work practice occurs in local authorities across the country on a daily basis. Families receive a service that helps them to get  their lives back on the right track: dads get support to quit drinking, mums get the mental health treatment required, parents re-enter work, and children get to school on time. If MPs query what the extra money I am requesting is actually needed for, then I beg them to visit their local children’s social care teams and listen to what social workers say.
More resources result in a less stretched service and more time for professionals to spend with families providing the support they need at the earliest possible moment. More resources result in that little bit extra in the social worker’s budget: a pram for the destitute mum; a burger for a teenager running away from home; or a taxi to get dad across town for his mental health assessment. Why is that important? Because social workers want and need to give every opportunity they can to keep children at home with their families.
In November last year, the UN rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights concluded that poverty in the UK has been a political choice. Well, the Government have before them another political choice: whether to fund services that protect vulnerable children from harm and provide high-quality care for children in the state system, or to choose to ignore the crisis and pretend that their funding for innovation and transformation is anything more than a drop in the ocean. Let us not be in any doubt: this is also a political choice. Will the Minister please make the right choice tonight and commit to provide the core funding that Rotherham so desperately needs?

Nadhim Zahawi: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing this important debate. We have heard interventions from the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) about her work in this area. I whole- heartedly agree that nothing is more important than the work we do to ensure that vulnerable children are able to live safe and happy lives and achieve their potential wherever they live and whatever their background or circumstance.
I congratulate Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council on how hard it has worked to turn around its children’s services, with the instrumental support of our commissioners, including Mary Ney and Patricia Bradwell. I was delighted when Rotherham’s children’s services were rated “good” by Ofsted last March, following three years of intervention by my Department and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to address systemic failings. That is a real credit to Ian Thomas and Sharon Kemp, and to the local politicians who have worked so closely with them. It is good to see the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) on the Opposition Front Bench. He, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley and the hon. Member for Rotherham have spent many hours working with their local politicians and leaders to deliver that turnaround. They have shown that when there is buy-in from leaders locally, both politically and at officer class, real change can be achieved. This was not intervention for intervention’s sake, but to improve the lives of some of the most vulnerable children and families in our society.
As I hope we all agree, we welcome the further £410 million in 2019-20 for local authorities to invest in adult and children’s social care services, which was announced in the autumn Budget. That is on top of the more than £200 billion until 2020 that was made available in the 2015 spending review for councils to deliver local services, including children’s services. Of that, Rotherham is currently forecast to have a core spending power of £206 million in 2019-20—an increase of 1.6% on last year.
I recognise that Rotherham and other local authorities are delivering in a very challenging environment—it would be foolish to claim otherwise—and that they have had to make difficult choices as they work to meet the needs of the most vulnerable. I assure the House that my Department is continuing to work closely with the sector to build the strongest evidence base for long-term children’s services funding as part of the spending review. We are also working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to inform a review of relative needs and resources to make sure that at future Government funding settlements, the money gets to where it is needed most.
On top of that core funding, my Department has agreed to provide an additional £2 million to Rotherham over the four years to 2021, recognising the additional pressures from the increase in children’s social care referrals from Operation Stovewood. That is in addition to the nearly £750,000 that we gave in 2015-16 to 2016-17 to alleviate the immediate pressures on services. My Department also remains committed, along with the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and NHS England, to continuing to work with Rotherham and South Yorkshire police to assess the demand on local services as a result of Operation Stovewood. As set out in the Government’s victims strategy, we want to support even more victims to speak up by giving them the certainty that they will be understood, protected and supported through their journey, regardless of their circumstances or background and whether or not they report the crime.
We all agree that the failings that led to the child sexual exploitation that took place in Rotherham must never, never happen again, either in Rotherham or elsewhere. The Secretary of State and I are united in making it our priority to do everything that we can to prevent that. That is why my Department is funding the child sexual exploitation response unit to provide independent support to local areas and will be funding a new £2 million child exploitation service, which is launching later this year. That is on top of over £2 million of funding for two innovation programme projects. The hon. Member for Rotherham referred to them as drops in the ocean, but they are innovative programmes to test new models of safeguarding children. That includes the Lighthouse project, based in Camden, which is providing a complete range of services for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation and their families, under one roof.
We know that many of the children and young people who were victims of child sexual exploitation in Rotherham are now facing, or have already faced, the difficult transition to adulthood, about which the hon. Lady is rightly concerned. The Government are committed to ensuring that they and all other vulnerable children are ready for adult life, avoiding cliff edges in support. That is why we have extended the offer of support from local  authorities to all care leavers up to the age of 25, and why our reforms to support special educational needs also now extend from nought to 25.
By revising it last year, we strengthened the statutory guidance, “Working together to safeguard children”, to make clear the importance of transitions, and it now states clearly the expectation that a local authority should plan for transitions in advance for children on child in need plans and child protection plans, including, specifically, where children are likely to move between children’s and adult services.
I turn to the hon. Lady’s comments about early help, which we know plays an important role in promoting safe and stable families. Early help is about intervening early with the right families at the right time and in the right way. The statutory guidance is clear that in doing that, local areas should have in place a comprehensive range of effective and evidence-based services to address assessed needs early.
Across Government, we are doing that by tackling the problems that cause children to be in need. That includes better supporting those with alcohol-dependent parents, landmark legislation for those affected by domestic abuse, investment in early years education and support for children and young people’s mental health. The Government have also committed £920 million to the troubled families programme to achieve significant and sustained improvement for up to 400,000 families with multiple, high-cost problems by 2020. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, the cost of non-intervention and failure is much higher. Rotherham has been allocated £5.5 million from 2015 to 2020 and has already received over £3 million of that funding.
In making sure that the right families receive the right support at the right time, investment in innovation is key and must not be underestimated. The hon. Member for Rotherham is critical of that investment, but I would argue that it is right that core social care funding be supplemented by that support for local authorities to manage rising demand and costs through adopting and adapting the best new practices.

Sarah Champion: To be clear, I am not critical of innovation—it is great—but it should come on top of core funding, not instead of it. The Minister mentioned the £500,000 a year for four years. That will fund 10 looked-after children placements. We have over 600 in Rotherham. Will he please just tell me whether he is going to give us additional funding? We are on our knees in Rotherham and begging him for support.

Nadhim Zahawi: I attempted earlier to explain our plan for the spending review, but I hope the hon. Lady will understand that I cannot pre-empt a spending review from the Dispatch Box.
The sector, my Department, the Ministry of Justice and the new What Works Centre for Children’s Social Care, funded by my Department, are all looking to understand better what makes a difference in supporting children to stay with their families safely and preventing them from reaching this crisis point. Strong decision making is critical to ensuring that children are removed from their families only as a last resort.
As I highlighted earlier, promising signs are emerging from our £270 million investment in the children’s social care innovation, partners in practice and improvement programmes. For example, an integrated edge-of-care service, No Wrong Door, in north Yorkshire, has delivered extraordinary results, with 86% of young people staying out of care and getting greater stability and improved educational and employment outcomes. All of this is strengthening families and protecting children.
We continue to learn from what achieves the best outcomes for children and families and to support local authorities to adopt and adapt the programmes that successfully intervene to prevent problems from escalating. The hon. Lady mentioned the £84 million investment over the next five years to build on learning from the most promising innovation programmes and projects, such as that in north Yorkshire, and to improve social work practice and decision making. In up to 20 local authorities, this new strengthening families and protecting children programme will support more children to stay safe at home with their families, where that is in their best interests. The hon. Lady asked how the funds would be allocated. We are working with the sector to determine how best to do that, looking particularly at authorities that are struggling to meet challenges caused by rising pressures.
The practice of staff locally—from the leadership of directors of children’s services to the decision making of social workers—is also paramount in ensuring that the right children are given the right support at the right time. We are undertaking a programme of reforms to ensure that there is a highly capable, highly skilled workforce making good decisions about what is best for children and families. That includes a significant investment in training and development to meet clear professional standards for social workers. We have also established a new specialist social work regulator, Social Work England, and we are rolling out a national assessment and accreditation system. I am pleased that we are discussing Rotherham’s participation in the second phase of our voluntary roll-out of the programme.
Alongside our existing programme for aspiring practice leaders and new practice supervisors, we are working with the sector to establish a strategy to support current and future leaders. As I have said before, this is about realising our aim to establish a consistently stronger, more confident profession, making better assessments of children’s safety and welfare and equipped with the skills to deliver lasting change for families.
Let me end by echoing the hon. Lady’s thanks to social workers and all those who work so hard to support vulnerable families and children every day. I have seen their passion and dedication at first hand. For example, last year, during my visit to Brighton, I spent the day with two social workers, Ruth and Jen, who were an absolute credit to the profession. As I said at the beginning of my speech, we have a shared ambition to ensure that the most vulnerable children have the safety and stability that they need in order to achieve their potential.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.